The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1852-02-03 00:00:00

(The latter selling 7'ann's •rates and Boxes, and advertising
himself astute proprietor of 'rano': Patent safes, Chests, &e.)
The above trial was instituted for the purpose of vindicating
the exclusive right, on the part of the Plaintiff, of applying
liquids, or materials evolving moisture on the application of
heat, together with ether absorbent materials, within the
chambers of Boxes, Safes, or Depositories, calculated to per-
vade the chambers and contents of the safes with moisture
and steam, when heated by fire, thereby preserving the papers
from ignition. Mr. Crowder, Q.C., Mr. M. Chambers. Q.C.,
and Mr. Webster, appeared for the Plaintiff; and Sir F. The-
siger, Mr. Knowles. Q.C., and Mr. Hind'narsh, for the Defen-
dant. After ►he case had been stated by Mr. Crowder evidence
was given by Mr. Grantham, of Liverpool. Civil Engineer and
Surveyor of Steamers to the Board of Trade; Mr. Samuel
Woods. jun.. of London, formerly of Liverpool ; Mr. J. W.
Pitcher, of Liverpool ; Mr. Alderman Bennett, Ironfounder, of
Liverpool; Dr. Sheridan Mnspratt, Professor of Chymistry,
Liverpool Mr. John Smith, President of the Guardian
Society. Liverpool; Mr. B. Woodcroft, Professor of Machinery
at the University College. London ; and by Mr. John Owens,
one of the foremen of Milner's Works for the last twenty years,
on the utility, orieina•ity, &c., of Milner's Safes—of which

upwards of 25,000 are now in use—and also of the infringe-
ment of Milner's Patent by the Defendant, who was proved to
have used the very materials in the Safes and Boxes he had
tested and sold, which he bad seen used by the Plaintiff's firm,
when in their service as Shnpman. from 1646 to 1849. This
was followed by Sir P. Thesiger's reply for the Defendant, who

_ . ..... .
called several witnesses, hut whose leiiimony, on cross
nation, completely established the Plaintiff's case
Crowder finally addressed the Jury on the facts, and
Lord CAMPBELL then summed up. This. Le said, was art
action for the infringement of a patent granted on the 2ath of
August, 1840, for certain alleged improvemen►s in boxes for
the protection of papers from fire. The defet dant set un

exami-
Mr-

several defences, which he would not take exactly in their
proper order. Ist. He said that there was no proper specifica-
tion of this patent. 2dly. That Milner, the patentee, was not
the inventor ; also, that it was not a new invention, that it was
not a useful invention; and that, at all events, the defendant
had not infringed the patent. He
fully. and if the jury thought it
rea4 it over

vidence very

,silt them he would

'de Jury intimated that

Lord CAMPBELL then said; he should sho7tlvZ;ltheir
attention to the several questions they were to determine, for
they were all for their determination. With regard to the in-
fringement, he would repeat the direction he had before given
them. Here was the specification, and although he thought
this issue was hardly disputed, they must consider whetbkr an
ordinary workman, of ordinary skill, looking at it, could make
one of the boxes it described. The witnesses had said that an
ordinary workman, in their judgment. would he able to do so.

The next issue was with regard to the novelty of the inven•
Lion. The third and fourth were so much alike that they might
be taken as part of the same Question.
It lay on the plaintiff to show that this was a new invention,
and if he gave prima facie evidence that it was so, the defen-
dant would have to show that it was not. Now there was cer-
tainly strong evidence on the part of the plaintiff to show that
it was new. It was for them to say whether it was properly an
invention for the protection of papers against fire. The papers
',ere locked in an iron box, having cases enclosed, leaving
-"hers between t e two cases, and the object was to have
-,-• give out a moisture upon the appli-
-• be in-

of 'the 1
losed in the b

n thus produced was

he paners so that they might be
.e. There had been several wit,

several of those

called for the defend
ti3n to this subject.

lad ont

ly turned their atten
for the plaintiff salt

consisted merely of
troduced of having

troduce some non:Co

of heat might I.
was nothing tit
by the operant)!
On the part of the
Chubb's patents, am

1 Mr. Milner's

I as pOssible ; but that there
atent to moisten the papers

,fly reliee

,nt to coiiiir