The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1852-06-22 00:00:00

CASES OF DROPSY

Persons suffering from Dropsy. either about the turn of life,
or at other times, should immediately have recourse to these
Pills, as hundreds of persons are annually cured, by their use,
of this direful complaint in its different stages, when all other
means had failed.

These celebrated Pills are wonderfully efficacious in the fol-
lowing complaints
Ague Female Irregulari-
Asthma ties —...
Bilious Complaints Fevers of all kinds Sore Throats
Blotches on the Skin Fits Stone and Gravel
Bowel Complaints Gout Secondary Symp
Colics Head-ache toms
Constipation of the Indigestion Tic-Douloure
Bowels m Inflamation
Tumours

Scrofula, or King's
Evil

aundice

)ebility

Liver complaints

Lumbago

Venereal Affection
Worms of all kind
Weakness, fre

lheumatism

whatever cau

t the Est

zscc. &C.
SOP HOLLOWAY,

to each Box.

Is. lid.,

AN application was made on Thursday, the 25th
September, before his Honour Vice-Chancellor Sir
George Turner, at Bath, on behalf of Mr.3141/lam Milner, as
Executor of the late Thorims Milner, thy,..Patentee of an Inven-
tiori-of "Improvements in Boxes, Wes, or other Depositories
'or the Protection of P- f-----

_ - rapers or o,thfr materials from Fire," for
an injunction to restrain the AeTendant, John German Harri-
son, of Liverpool, his agents, servants, &c., from making,
using, putting in prastice, or vending, or procuring to be
made, &c., theremainder 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, or
resembling the said Invention.

Mr. Weister appeared forthe 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, distributed i❑ an absorbent .material in
spaces between the outer and inner casings of the Box, which
substances, when exposed to heat, evolved steam or moisture,
the combined effect of Abe moisture and the material, kept

The dCfendant 'gold Safes and Boxei'. 'which„ be represented
to be made under a Patent granted to Messrs. Tann, of Lon-
don, but 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 against the defendant for the infringement, and tried

jury, and a verdict found for the plaintiff, the defeinlant'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 Muspratt whose
analysis accompanied his affidavit. The affidavit of Mr. John

Tann stated

t he believed this Safe had been-mad

and his3)artners, and he alleged that it was made acco
heir specification

HisbOxoutt stated the principle on which the Court inter-
fered in cases of this kind, and observed that Tann's specifi-
cation appeared to contemplate only a dry non-conductor to
stop the heat.lvhereas Milner's created a further obstruction
to the fire, by producing at the period when the fire began to
act on the box an effusion of steam, which pervaded the non-
conducting material with moisture, and thereby protected the
Safe and its contents. His Honour adverted to the on„ enjoy-
ment of the Patent which was granted in 1840, the result of the
trial at law, and the clear opinioni n the plaintiff's favour
expressed by the Lord Chief Justice, and in which his Honour
concurred, stating that he considered Milner's was a Patent
claiming every mode by which the liquid. Rzc., might be em-
ployed to.moisten the absorbent material; and he concluded
by granting the injunction in the terms of the motion.

PRESERVATION OF BOOKS, DEEDS, &c,
FROM FIRE.

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

LORDCAI‘MHPLBNEILLR Av.
.N
HDAARRSIPsEOCNIA.L JURY.

(The latter selling Tune's Soles and Boxes, and advertising
himself as soie proprietor qf 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, ogether 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-
s_,,in•er, Mr. Knowles, Q.C., and Mr. Hindmarsh, for the Defen-
(rant. 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.
Pitcher, 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 theirservice 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 summer 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 defendant set up
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 had taken the evidence very
fully, and if the jury thought it would assist them he would
read it over.

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 teas 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-
ti3n 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 patents 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 was to be condensed into steam to
moisten the papers in the inner case. They bad 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 knows► before the date of hispatent. If they
thought it was, they would find that issue for the defendant ;
and if they thought it was not,they would find it for the 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 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 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, be 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 Taen's
specification. if they came to the conclusion that tne 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
bearing on these issues ; and if they thought that, although the
boxes that the defendant sold did not contain any pipes, tubes,
or artificial vessels for containing the liquid, they contained
alum and other substances from which moisture was to be ex-
tracted by heat; if they thought they were substantially the
same as Milner's, they would find that issue for the plaintiff
and if they thought they were not the same as Milner's, for th,
defendant. They were at liberty to find that issue for tin
plaintiff; although the defendant did not use any pipes, tubes
or artificial vessels. If they thought the process was substan
tidily the same as that mentioned in the plaintiff's specification
they would find that issue for the plaintiff. They must bear ii
mind that the plaintiff said; "I claim as my invention the in
troduction or application of the combined effect in chamberet
boxes, or depositories of the moisture and material kept humic
in the space surrounding the innermost box, and its contents
without in any way being confined to the material or liqui
employed, or the manner in which it may be distributed o
arranged, in order to produce the desired effect of protectin
boxes, safes, or other depositories enclosing papers, or oth
materials, from fire.." It ffas on the construction of th
words that h

had directed them in point of law, that the de
have infringed the patent, although he did no
Of tubes, or pipes, or artificial vessel& With thi

for them to s
if they found

f the defen4w had i
t it was so, d'lMages
Id be sufficien
they won

but they

T, there

Ves, whict

es ori3ex,

CARSON'S ORIGINAL ANTI-CORROSION
PAINT, specially patronised by the British, French, Rus-
sian, and Sicilian Governments, the Hon. East India Company,
the New River Company, the principal Dock Companies, and
other Public Bodies.

The ANTI-CORROSION PAINT has been used by the Hon.
Board of Ordnance for upwards of half a century, who have
proved it to prevent rust or corrosion on Iron lcrfiger and better
than the very best White Lead or any other description of
Paint; and in consequence of its possesiing this inviluable
quality, all the Iron Guns and Gun Carriages, both for land
and sea service, have been painted with it for the above period.
It has also been used in great quattities by other public bodies,
and by numbers of Gentlemen of the first distinction, to pre-
serve Wooden Houses, Farm- and other Out-buildings, Conser-
vatories, Park Paling, Gates, Iron Railing, Iron Hurdles, Cop-
per, Zinc, Lead, old Compo, &c., Fronts and Tiles to represent
Slating. It will be found a very superior preservative of Iron
Steam Boats, Iron Bridges, Piers, or any other extensive Iron
Works.

This Paint is admirably adapted for preventing the decay of
old stone or brick Mansions, Churches, or other Public Edi-
fices requiring an effectual defence against the elements. It is
particularly recommended to West India and other Colonial
Proprietors, Emigrants, and all persons connected with the
Colonies, who will find it to stand all climates better than any
other Paint. The superiority of the Anti Corrosion to any
other Paint may be easily inferred from the simple fact that its
use bss always been most strenuously opposed by Color Manu-
facturers and others interested in the sale of Common Paint.
Noblemen and Landed Proprietors, anxious to have their
Out-buildings, &c. properly preserved, will effect a very con-
siderable saving by desiring their Stewards to order the Anti-
Corrosion Paint, as any laborer can lay it on, thereby saving
the enormous charges generally made by painters.
The Anti-Corrosion is a powder, and it will keep any length
of time. Colors : White stone, light stone, drab, or Portland
stone, Bath stone, light and dark yellow stone, light and dark
oak, brown, light and dark lead, light and dark chocolate,
bright and dark red, copper and black, 345. per cwt. ; invisible
green, 505., bright green, 605., deep green, 60s , and blue (for
carts and wagons), 60s. per cwt.; in casks 231 b., 561 b., and
1121 b. each.—Large tied Brushes, 3s. 6d.; small tied Ditto,
2s. 6d. ; and Sash Tools, Is. 6d. each.
OIL AND TURPENTINE, AT PER GALLON.
Sameh.
One
cwt. a
casks,ed for rs e.
viz., Is. per gallon. - - —eight
t6udr.n; e hd a
el fmapntdy qouial r
pt earc
kc
gt
e.
sd,i tat ,
cl er
na. ce

The Expense of the Colors at 345. per cwt., when th.
of the Oil is added, is about 4d. per lb.; and those
about 6d. per lb.
The Original Anti-Corrosion Paint is only to be obtained of
WALTER CARSON AND SON
(Successors to the Inventors), No. 9, GREAT WINCHESTER-
STREET, OLD BROAD-STREET, NEAR THE ROYAL EX-
CHANGE, LONDON, who will show between 500 and 600 most
flattering Testimonials received from the Nobility. Gent,-
other Influential Persons, who have used the A
for many years.
No Agents.—All orders are particularly ray
direct.

at 605.,

Cientry

PURSUANT to an order in
cery, made in a cause,
Inother, the Creditors of HANN

I Tito'

L Clay 0]
i 2, to

EDWARD BANN'ER
Of 24, North 7