The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1852-02-10 00:00:00

was nothing until IV
by the operation of steam

On the part of the defendar
Chubb's patents, and it wouk
patents were not confined
The object of both was to save pap
mode and operation was the quest
puzzled to know the difference between t
and Chubb, and he afterwards found from one of the with
that there was no distinction between them. The
non-conductors in the inner case. but neither seen
had the slightest contemplation of any liquid, as their objet_
was rather to have substances as dry as possible, but had no
notion of a liquid which was to be condensed into steam to
moisten the papers in the inner case. '7- - -
evidence, and it would be for them to sas
satisfied that the invention which Mr

:ed to have

they were
out in his

specification was known before the dab
thought it was, they would find that i
and if they thought it was not, they won

The third and fourth issues were substantially the
that Mr. Milner was not the inventor, and the invention
not new. If Mr. Milner was the inventor, the invention was
new; and if he was not the inventor, it was not new. Then
came the issue of whether it was useful, and he must say he
had been astonished to find such strong evidence of its useful-
ness. Up to this hour he had no idea that there were any
human means of so effectually preserving papers from the
action of fire. It appeared that, by means of thp
of steam, the papers enclosed in tbe inner
moist. It was a comfort for one to know
vention, by which valuable documents migt
notwithstanding the terrible calamity of I
house. Although the defendant had thou
not useful, he was really at a loss to say
was to raise any doubt as to its utility ;
for them alone. Now came the direction
in point of law, and in this they must be guided
He thought there might be an infringement, alehoms-
fendant did not use vessels, pipes, or tubes for containin.
liquid. All the rest be left to them ; but he only said that it
was not indispensably necessary that the defendant should us,
pipes, tubes, or artificial vessels, but they were to consie
whether the evidence was sufficient to convince them that
defendant had infringed the patent. They would bear in
that respectable professors from King's College,
;a as
nt those
if
fe
they rl! nei.s
seminaries of learning, had been called for the defendant
infrie-
Tann's patent could only be evidence on the ground
ment, for it was not taken out until nearly
Milner's; but if, as it would appear that H-
boxes,they would consider whether they disproved the
specification, if they came to the conclusi'
thought that, ..
cation. They were to look on all the eviderw_
soarmaertaifiscmialiivnees;B7thfooyr
wcoounitdaifinnindg
nwoetrceotain any pipt,„,
thathat
the
ilsiqsnunidi,nrthtehye cpoinatian,ifr
boxes hh
netctolluel could
enfoetnsdaal tt sold did not
alum and other substances from which moisture was to be ex-
tracted by heat; if they thought they were substantially
.the
and if they thought they were not the same as Milner's, for the
bb
ey Tianngno were etrheethese
thei
sssaume
se
defendant. They were at liberty to find that issue for the
plaintiff, although the detendant did not use any pipes, tubes,
or artificial vessels. If they thought the process was substan-
tially the same as that mentioned in the plaintiff's specification,
they would find that issue for the plaintiff. 'They must bear in
mind that the plaintiff said, " I claim as my invention the in-
troduction or application of the combined effect iu chambered
boxes, or depositories of the moisture and material kept humid
in the space surrounding the innermost box, and its contents,
without in any way being confined to the material or liquid
employed, or the manner in which it may be distributed or
arranged, in order to produce the desired effect of protecting
boxes, safes, or other depositories enclosing papers, or other
materials, from fire." It was on the construction of these
words that he had directed them in point of law, that the de-
fendant may have infringed the patent, although be did not
make use of tubes, or pipes, or artificial vessels. With this
exception, be left it for them to say if the defendant had in.
fringed the patent ; if they found that it was so, damages not
being in dispute, the sum of forty shillings would be sufficient:
but they were to consider, themselves, which way they would
find their verdict
The Jury, after a short deliberation, said they found their
verdict upon all the issues for the plaintiff.

e, being

rendered

.e breaking

what evidenCe there

i the de-
the

I other

on that the

a either side

lIRDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Upon this verdict, establishing the validity of Milner 's Pa-
tents, so fully confirmed by his Honour the Vice-Chancellor's
decision, further proceedings in Chancery are being adapted
against all varties Selling, Holding, or Using these Safes or
Boxes