The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1852-04-06 00:00:00

lositories

fes. or o

for the Protection of Papers or other materials from for
an injunction to restrain the defendant, John German Harri-
son, of Liverpool, his agents, servants, &c., from making,

using, putting in practice, or vending, or procuring to fie
made, &c., during the remainder of the term mentioned in the
Letters Patent granted to Mr. Thomas Milner' any Boxes,
safes, or other depositories made in such or the like manner,
or on the same or the like •principle as the said Thomas Mil-
ner's Invention, or in anywise counterfeiting, imitating, •r

Mr. Webster appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Shebbeare
for the defendant, and affidavits in support of and in opposition
to the motion were read. Milner's invention consisted in the
use of substances, distribdted in an absorbent material in
spaces between the outer and inner casings'of the Box, which
substances, when exposed to beat, evolved steam or moisture,
the combined effect of the moisture and the material, kept
humid, protecting the Safes, enclosing papers, &c., from fire.
The defendant sold Safes and Boxes, which he represented
to be made under a Patent granted to Messrs. Tann, of Lon-
don. bat which the plaintiff contended were substantially
made according to Milner's Invention, and were an infringe-
ment on his Patent. An action had been brought by the
plaintiff aEainst the defendant for the infringement, and tried
to June last, before Lord Chief Justice Campbell and a special
jury, and a verdict found for the plaintiff, the defendant's
counsel tendering a Bill of Exceptions to the direction of the
learned judge on the construction of Mr. Milner's specification.
Notwithstanding this verdict, the defendant Harrison had
continued to sell the Boxes and Safes complained of, and the
affidavits filed by the plaintiff proved the recent sale by defen-
dant of a Safe, which scientific witnesses stated was substan-
tially the same as those proved on the trial, and found to be an
infringement. This was verified by Doctor Musprat, whose
analysis accompanied his affidavit. The affidavit of Mr. John
Tann stated that he believed this Safe had been made by him
and his partners, and he alleged that it was made acyding to
their specification

His HONOUR stated the principle on which tVourt inter-
fered in cases of this kind, and observed that - ann's specifi-
cation appeared to contemplate only a dry on-conductor to
stop the heat, whereas Milner's created urther obstruction
to the fire, by producing at the period en the fire began to
act on the box an effusion of steam, ich pervaded the non-
conducting material with moisture, nd-thereby protected the
Safe and its contents. His Hon-0 adverted to thel ong enjoy-
ment of the Patent which was gr ted in 1840, the resnit of the
trial at law, and the clear o ion in the plaintiff's favour
expressed by the Lord Chief stice, and in which his Honour
concurred, stating that he nsidered Milner's was a Patent
claiminr, every mode by ich the liquid. &c., might be em-
ployed to moisten the allkorbent material: and he concluded
by granting the injunction in the terms of the motion.

PRESERVAVON OF BOOKS, DEEDS, &c.,

FROM FIRE

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH, JUNE 23RD, 1851, BEFORE

LORD CAMPBELL AND A SPECIAL JURY

MILNER v. HARRISON

(The latter selling Tann's Safes and Boxes, and advertising
himself assole proprietor of Tann's Patent Safes, Chests, 6-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. Hindmarsh, for the Defen-
dant. After the 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.
Pilcher, of Liverpool ; Mr. Alderman Bennett, Ironfounder, of
Liverpool; Dr. Sheridan Muspratt, 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, originality, &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 had seen used by the Plaintiff's firm,
when in their service as Shopman, from 1846 to 1849. This
was followed by Sir F. Thesiger's reply for the Defendant, who
called several witnesses, but whose testimony, on cross-exami-
nation, completely established the Plaintiff's case. Mr.
Crowder finally addressed the Jury on the facts, and
Lord CAMPBELL then summed up. This, he said, was an
action for the infringement of a patent granted on the 26th of
August, 1840, for certain alleged improvements in boxes for
the protection of papers from fire. The deferdant set up
several defences, which he would not take exactly in their
proper order. Ist. He said that there was nn 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 had taken the evidence very
fully, and if the jury thought it would assist them he would
read it ever.

The Jury intimated that they did not think it necessary.
Lord CAMPBELL then said, he should shortly direct their
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 whether 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 be able to do so.
The next issue was with regard to the novelty of the inven-
tion. 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
were locked in an iron box, having cases enclosed, leaving
chambers between t e two cases, and the object was to have
some substance that would give out a moisture upon the appli-
cation of the heat, and the steam thus produced was to be in-
closed in the box and moisten the papers so that they might be
preserved from the effects of fire. There had been several wit-
nesses of respectability on both sides, although several of those
called for the defendant had only recently turned their atten-
tion to this subject. Several witnesses for the plaintiff said
that, although there had been an addition to the old safe which
consisted merely of a single iron box, a mode having been in-
troduced of having an outer box, the great object was to in-
troduce some non-conducting substance, so that the operation
of heat might be retarded as much as possible; but that there
was nothing until Mr. Milner's patent to moisten the papers
by the operation of steam.
On the part of the defendant, he chiefly relied on Marr's and
Chubb's patents, and it would be for them to say whether those
patents were not confined to introducing non-conductors.
The object of both was to save papers from destruction, but the
mode and operation was the question in dispute. He had been
puzzled to know the difference between the two natents of Marr
and Chubb, and he afterwards found from one of the witnesses
that there was no distinction between them. They both had
non-conductors in the inner case. but neither seemed to have
had the slightest contemplation of any liquid, as their object
was rather to have substances as dry as possible, but had no
notion of a liquid which vas to be condensed into steam to
moisten the papers in the inner case. They had heard the
evidence, and it would be for them to say whether they were
satisfied that the invention which Mr. Milner set out in his
specification was known before the date of his patent. If they
thought it was, they would find tht,t issue for the defendant ;
and if they thought it was not, they would find it forthe plaintiff.
The third and fourth issues were substantially the same, being
that Mr. Milner was not the inventor, and the invention was
not new. If Mr. Milner was the inventor, the invention was
new; and if lie was not the inventor, it was not new. Then
came the issue of whether it was useful, and he must say lie
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 me-ins of so effectually preserving naners from the
action of fire. It appeared that, by means of the condensation
of steam, the papers enclosed in the inner box were rendered
moist. It was a comfort for one to know that there was an in-
vention, by which valuable documents might be rendered secure,
notwithstanding the terrible calamity of fire breaking out in a
house. Although the defendant had thought fit to say it was
not useful, he was really at a loss to say what evidence there
was to raise any doubt as to its utility; but the question was
for them alone. Now came the direction he should give them
in point of law, and in this they must be guided by what he said.
He thought there might be an infringement, although the de-
fendant did not use vessels, pipes, or tubes for containing the
liquid. All the rest he left to them ; but he only said that it
was not indispensably necessary that the defendant should use
pipes, tubes, or artificial vessels, but they were to consider
whether the evidence was sufficient to convince them that the
defendant had infringed the patent. They would bear in mind
that respectable professors from King's College, and other
seminaries of learning, had been called for the defendant, and
they would consider whether they disproved the infringement.
Tann's patent could only be evidence on the ground of infringe-
ment, for it was not taken out until nearly four years after
Milner's; but if, as it would appear that Harrison sold Tann's
boxes, he could not say that they were not to look to Tann's
specification, if they came to the conclusion that the poxes made
by Tann were the same as those Milner described in his specifi-
cation. They were to look on all the evidence on either side
searing on these issues; and if they thought that, although the
.s that the defendant sold did not contain any pipes, tubes,
~essels for containing the liquid, they contained
substances from which moisture was to be ex-
it; if they thought they were substantially the
r s, they would find that issue for the plaintiff;
Ight they were not the same as Milner's, for the
were at liberty to find that issue for the
it did not use any pipes, tubes,
might the process was substan-
'n the plaintiff's specification

(1 other

li the deret
Is. If the
that ment

mind t

_ll437h!tclrifre'c-t-eidt-t-1

as my invention the in

Late !urn of fc
'insider, the

it may 1:

,und that it wa
irty shillings vr,

wa!i9n,. said they f

m of ti

LAINTIFF

ity of h