The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1849-03-27 00:00:00

ated, in 1

proces

, drying, End finishing woven fabrics ;
and he could not better explain to the jury the important
nature of the invention, or the improvement effected by
it, than by banding in a specimen of the cloth as produced
by this n

ting it with a piece as pre. ared
by the ordinary rigid finishing machines. (Two pieces of
muslin were here produced.) The stiff web was not sub-
mated to the operation of the patented machine, whilst
the other was ; and he would leave it to the touch and
sight of the jury, in order that they might see the differ-
ence in the fabric. He might state that the object of the
patent was to give that elastic finish to the fabric which
was necessary to make it a marketable article. By the
old method, the web, when bleached, was placed on a
machine which was called a clamping machine, which con-
sisted of two lateral rails, along which were placed several
clamps, which caught the selvidge of the web. A screw
was then applied to give the web the required tension, and
it was then allowed to dry. (The clamping machine was
here produced.) They would perceive that by this ma-
chine the web remained stationary during the process of
drying. In the completion of cotton goods the use of
starch was necessary; and before the invention of the

patentees was first brought out the method resorted to for
giving cloth this elastic finish was by the human hands—

taking th
gonal po

)f the elotl

m by t

, and stretching it in a dia-
, whilst it was being dried.

That was the r

in which cloth was finished anterior to
rand's_ patent—a model of which was

a patent callec
then in court,

h he would explain. The object

) dry the web t

eans of placing it
upon a set of pins on each of the lateral frames, as used
in the ordinary clamping machine. By this process the
cloth was also kept in a fixed position during the
process, and produced only what was called the rigid
finish. This patent, however, expired, and it was
open to all the world to use it as might be useful. Mr.
Bridson had his attention called to the framing of a ma-
chine, which would have the effect of causing the weft
and warp to go diagonally, from side to side, in order to
produce the effect (though much improved) which had
been formerly produced by the human hands. In fact
the whole invention consisted in giving to the machine
of Morand the motion of a parallel ruler impelled for-
wards, but making the distending motion at the same
time. The first part of the machine he admitted was
Morand's, the novelty being the progressive zig-zag pa-
rallel motion, which only could produce the elastic finish
so requisite for the finish of i his cloth. The learned
counsel then read a portion of the specification on which
he relied, and exhibited a model of both the patented
machine and the alleged infringement, the latter of which
varied from the former only in making its movement for-
ward with the cloth,—goine step by step, from right to
left whilst the cloth was being put upon the machine. He
then supported his view of the law of the case by refer-
ence to the cases :—Walton v, Potter, as brought before
Chief Justice Tyndal ; Morgan v. Seward, and Duke V.
Pratt, in which Baron Alderson said that in the invention
before him (a gasometre) there never were two things so
different in form to the eye as the two machines before
him. It was true, that for a mere principle a patent
could not be taken out; the patent must be for some
mode of producing a manufacture, or of carrying out a
principle ; but if the patentee had succeeded in inventing
a mode of carrying out his principle he was entitled to
claim all other modes of carrying out the same principle,
and any 'other mode than his would be considered a
piracy. The questions for the jury to decide would be,
first, as to the point of infringement; secondly, as to
the validity of the specification, and thirdly, as to the
question of novelty. He had, however, no fear for his
client's case as the infringement was too transparent
to be passed over by any intelligent jury.
A number of engineering witnesses were then called and
examined for the plaintiffs, in order to prove the infringe-
ment, and also the novelty of the machine, previous to
its being patented. At the rising of the court, the plain-
tiffs' case was not concluded, nor is it likely to be for
a day yet at least.

(For yesterday's Crown Court see page 8.1