Star.
London, England, 1819-07-20 00:00:00

LAE DeI'.4IGENOE.
t.

I . •
COURT irritVilkiCEßY,'YUtir 17 and fo: •
'IIIII7NTON p. AWRES AND 'OTHERS I►oll INIPItINGIIto

A 13AtENT.
The Patentee, Mr. Brunton, had on the Bth day of
June last applied to the Court, praying that the de-
fendants might be restrained from making, using, or
vending Chain Cables or Moorings constructed on
the principles described by him in the Specification
of his Invention enrolled in the Court of Chanvery in
the year 1813, and an Injunction had been granted.
Mr. WETRERAL now applied to the Court, praying
that the said Injunction might be taken off on the
ground that the Patent and Specification set forth
three distinct things, being for" certain improvements
in the construction, making, or manufacturing of
Ship's Anchors and Windlasses, and Chain Cables or'
Moorings," and that if any one of them was norain
improvement or new, the Patent becomes virtually-
void. He mightl he said, proceed to shew that- in
the anchor and windlass there was no improvement,
but as the Injtinctioni now prayed to be dissolved,
related to the manufacturing and vending of chain
cables and moorings, on the principle which Mr:
Brunton contended belonged to him as his property,.
secured to him by letters patent, he would for the pre-
spt confine himself to his pretended right to the eieru-
sive manufacture and sale of such chains sir moor-
ings. He then referred to the Patentee's Specifrea,
non of his invention, which he said presented some
shett: of scientific description, but the ter ms made use
of ,b/ the Patentee were, he said, evidently
duced rather to mystify and obscure than to ffhis:
traie the nature of the invention they-were employed
to specify. Some of the positions to be sure, laid
down in the Specification, were incontrovertible ; but
they were not new, us would be seen by referring to
the figures accompanying the Specification. The
Patentee had shewn that if a strain be applied to a
round link it would lose its round form and become
lengthened in the direction of the strain, while in the
cross direction the sides would be made to approxi-
mate or become. parallel. Did not every person know
this ? Mr. Brun,ton's pretended improvement was that
of introducing a stay between the opposite sides of
the link, to prevent the sides from approaching, when
subjected to strain—an invention which had been in
use for ages ; and indeed Mr. Brunton had in his
Specification admitted that stays, in links of chains,
were in use before the date of his Patent, but then
they were,'he said, with small ends, yielding support
only to two opposite points of the link, and his pre-
tended improvement was neither more nor less than
extending the width of the ends of the interposed
stays. But could this be called new ? If the stay
was of the diameter of a sixpence, did not every one
know that a stay of the diameter of a shilling or of
half-a-crown would embrace a larger surface and
yield a proportionably greater support? What had
Mr. Brunton done more than is done by common
carpenters every day? If a carpenter puts up a plop
and finds its diameter too small to yield the required
support, does he not put a piece on it, as a head, to
give it the necessary breadth ? Mr. Brunton had done
no more: he had spread out the head of the stays
introduced into the links : this was the sum and sub-
stance of his invention, aad for this he had taken out
a Patent in 1813. His whole improvement resolved
itself into Melons of the link marked figure sjn hiss
Specification (and which, Mr. Wetheral said, pre-
sented somewhat of a lozinge appearance)- and the
introduction of a broad ended stay, which surely could
not be considered as presenting that improvement
and novelty which should entitle him to an exclusive
monopoly. The injunction which he prayed to have
removed was, he said, productive of most serious in-
jury to the defendants, in as much as they had about
400 men kept idle while the injunction continued
in force.

When Mr. WETHERAL had finished, the Court was
adjourned to Monday.
JANUARY 19.—Mr. HART, for the plaintiff, begged
to suggest, that as new matter had been introduced
into the answers of defendants evidently including
points of law which might require to be settled in
another Court ; that it might save some time to his
Lordship were the injunction removed, in the mean
time, to allow defendants to carry on their manufac-
ture till such decision could be had, the defendants
being ordered to keep an account of the chain cables
and moorings made by them, to ascertain the profits
made in the interim, should a verdict be obtained
against them.

Mr. WETHERAL said he had every wish to save
the time of the Court, could he see how that could
be done without. prejudice to his client; but such
an order would not only subject them to much in-
convenience, but place them under a kind of odium
which might be prejudicial to them in another
Court. He begged, therefore,' to go on with his
case, and stated that links with broad-ended stays
had been used in various kinds of machinery before
the date of the patent. He said it was impossible
from the specification to make out precisely what the
patentee claimed as his invention. He did, indeed,
refer to figures, and particularly to 4.5, which was
somewhat eliptical, but' alto presented akind of an-
gular projection on its opposite sides, with the neigh•
bouring portions of the link straight, and not elipti--
cal. His clients admitted, that, from 1814 to 1816,
'they did make chain-cables with such links, but ever
since, they had made them with eliptical links and
broad. ended stays in preference, and for a good sea-
son ; for they had tried the two kinds, and fotind the
eliptical, which was the old form, to be the strongest;
nor had they made any deviation in the link from'
the common form since 1816, except introducing a
stay : even if stays had never been used before, this
could not surely be considered as presenting suffi-
cient novelty and importance fur a patent; but stays
,were actually in use, and expanding the head was
only extending. a former principle. The patentee, in
fact, did not in his description confine his invention
io.tlie stay, but took the stay as introduced into a
ring flitikrof a particutir form. Even if stays of al
particular form could be matter of patent, yet the'
form of the link could not be matter of patent—he
having joined them, the patent could not be valid.—
But this was not all—the patent takes in three arti-
cles, .any one of which being old, the patent would
be void. The anchor, Mr. Wetheral contended,.pre-
seated nothing new: the mode of fastening in the shank
into the arms was only the common way of clench-
ing a nail, and nothing more; nor was it, he said,

rew as applied to anchoii. 4 Here is a e.o:1014
Fbrm of anchnrs in use for agtlesiluaiw
a model of a Boating-light atickii‘fot44sonfething
like'a cooper's adze).— 1.,
Mr. HART:---41 We have ticittung to do with that;
not being a ship's anchor."
Mr. WETHERAL.—" Here is another," (taking up
a model of what is called a mushroom Anchor) made
precisely in the manner described by the patentee;
with the shank rivetted in.

Mr. HART.—" Nor is that a ship's guitar—it has
got no arms." .
__
Mr. WErirEAAT......7” T,hese are aiithors, and may
be employed for anCluiring'ships."
Mr. ItAat—" But they have not been so employed?'
Mr. WErHERAL said there were other material ob;..
ijections against the pretended right. The City of
London had a considerable time ago advertised to
;contract for mooring-chains; the chains wee' fufT
.nished, not by the patentee: they had broad-ended
stays in the links: the patentee could not be ignorant
of this, for he was himself a competitor, nur bad he
brought any action for infringement, or even protes.;
ted against the use of she 7. fot.4hetio reasons, Mr.
WETHERAL hoped the,injunctient would instantly be
dissolved, and witbout an3c older.to keep an account'
Of the profitl.. "
' 'Mr. 111:11Atiwitit falltriviii On the same side, and
Went 'over the same ;Ittruilients, endeavouring to
place them its a clear poiNgeof view, but offered no
new facts. . . ,
Mr. HART, for the Patentee, contended that the.itt-
vention was well and truly specified ; the irnproVei
ment A great one, and the invention new. Nothing,
he said, was easier than to set-forth any improve-
ment as of a trithincitatitn, astd.loy forced analogies*
to represent a ne.w invention as having been known
for ages. every One knew, it had been said, that a
round link, by a strain, would be drawn into an oval
fottit -et to have its sides brought parallel could it
bear such afderangentent of the particles of the iron
without breaking. The Patentee in illustration of
his invention, and to teach others how. to make a good
chain, ltad demonstrated that fact, in his specificas
tion. lie had shown also that the interposition of a
stay, by "giving stipport-te.the opposite sides of the
link, would increase its.power of resistance ; but that
if this stay had sharp ends these would act as ful-
crums, over which the opposite sides of the link
would be broken on the application of a strain. And
he had shewn that his Bread-ended stag, embracing
as large a portion as possible of the opposite nerved
parts of the link, but still leaving room for the inter-
posed links to play in, would yield it that tupKirt
which never had been obtained, nor could be obtained
from sharp ended stays, like those in use before hi ob-
tained his Patent. To say that .stays had been Used
before, was saying nothing, ifthese staytdid net and
steer the end obtained by those of the Patentee.—
Every one knew before that any prop, howeversmall,
if placed perpendicular to the strain, would bear al,
weigh:, for it-is a physical fact that such a prop,
were it as small as a needle, would bear any
weight, were it that of the world, if other circum-
stances were answerable. The substance pressing on
the prop must be impenetrabla,,,butthis is not the
case even with iron. ifEnes of Mill diameter
in the. resent intten9:staTs between the.sideis"of a
Indprestedli teelifirortitrifibliiiefwilf pieta!
te
iiirf ititatily thOtts?Vaitid:tbeitresi-; that wiiichithq
are put in to supportnedk ',lain AMPitao i
llrfaf7s,/14X
defendants had never availed themselves it to m-
'prime chain ;eilslesaillillter.the plaiutilf. 4.14 deH,Rod..
strared ThelkLi9:l3klsPecififati9ll-- .?-, -IL. :- •
• galkitalAelrkyt over the ciifft Viit
p#igt (bp
specificatiOn der:iii i ands our hers'bitt
understand: ihe natuie of the-iiiiistient -by !haVrtri the'
.. .
specification beforeiheth, Vie insert* those parts on
which he laid --priocipal.-.stress, relating
.to chair
cables and-m.9rings! as nearly astbe.,wAnt of figures
to icier to will permit ns, in the word's of the r*ord.

SUBStANEE OF TIIE sPeCietCATEOS. '
•,‘ To convey correct ideas respecting my improve-
ments in the tenstttiction •of chain •ceblesa or moor- -
logs, it is necessary that I should point out and alastrate the principles which should guide the'work-
man in his operations. These, when thoroughly,bn-
derxtood,. will not only enable him to avail hi self
of my imptoitejnenta after the expirition of the said
term ; but will qualify him to detect, and conse-
quently to avoid, those errors find mistakes inform
:Ind construction which prevail, more or less, in all
the chains that have hitherto been employed for
cables or moorings. The object to be gained is the
greatest possible strength from a given quantity of
materials, keeping in mind' the direction in which
the strain is to be bonze. -If the teadeny of a attain
applied to a link of a bad form
.be once propeily
conceived, a great itep is gained towards 'the'adhp-
tiou of a good form. Lei All; fig. I, (repeater a
cireulai link of a chain. 'lf receding threat Int ap-
plied to the two next links, the ultimate. tqnplencz of
the effort of such force is to change the foreof die
circular link into one which shall have ilaivi'd'inds
and parallel sides, as figure 2 slitit'la'N'rerY. slight
examination will shew that, before:ebb/din beefier:l-
ed, the link must be destroyed: for in such a cketilar
link the corresponding segments of the outer and
inner circumferences being of different diainetifinie
of different 'lengths, and therefore everrieffart 'to
lengthen the link in one direction and make the sides
approximate in the other direction, must disturb the
relative position of every'particle of the,metal,,,suld
operate to destroy its corpuscular attraaiO3.
.Ifalie
oppasite segments of the link'are by the (wee of a
strain to be' changed from a curved to a ettoight
forni; chi-corresponding segments of the toter and
inner circareferences must be brought atk one le9gtb g
to effect which, the matter contained *aw outer
circumfeetice must be compress. or the matter
in the inner circumference, must be made to dilate
itself without losing its cohesion, or the required
compression and eipansion mutt be divided between
the two; all of which are impossible without a de-
rangement of the relative
_petition of every. particle
in-the mass. To be brief: the matter in the oppo-
she tides of the outer circumference may:be con-
ceived to present an infinite number of f.
over which the said receding forces, by asilefort to
render the curve straight, must rupture and 'Separate
the matter of the inner circumference. A circular
is therefore a bad form ; but from the foregoing it is •
obvious, that if the opposite sides of the circular-link
can be prevented from approximating each other,
the evil that has been pointed "out _WM be lessened.
Suppose a sharp ended stay to be itttroditeed for this