The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-09-03 00:00:00

BENTLEY V. FLEMING.

This was an action brought by Henry Bentley against
Thomas Fleming.
Mr. Watson, Mr. Rotche, and Mr. Webster appeared
for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Knowles, Mr. Baines, and Mr.
Cowling for the defendant.
Mr. WATSON stated the case. He said the plaintiff
was a reel and spindle manufacturer, carrying on business
at Salford, and the defendant was a card-maker at Halifax,

in the county of York ; and the action was brought by the
plaintiff, who was the assignee and owner of a patent,
against the defendant, for an infringement of that patent.
The law relating to patents was well known: suffice it to
say that, according to law, where the sovereign granted
letters-patent to a person, that person had the exclusive
use of that patent for a period of fourteen years ; and
that the crown, when it granted a patent, granted it only
for those who were the inventors, and in eases where the
invention was new. These were the great questions in
the case. In the present case, the letters-patent were
obtained for a machine for making cards ; and it was one
of the most beautiful machines the public ever saw. This
machine was discovered and invented by William Parr
Thornton, who resided at Clackheaton, in the county of
York. Prior to the year 1837, the machines used in the
manufacture of cards were imperfect and inconvenient ;
but, about that time, Mr. Thornton turned his attention
to the subject, with the view of making one perfect and
cbinplete in every respect. He was for several years
making the necessary experiments. He made several
model machines, but failed in perfecting them ; and it was
not until the month of December, 18-11, that he was able to
make one thoroughly perfect. Whilst making the expe-
riments, he had a mill at Clackheaten, but being unable
to occupy the whole of it, persons of the name of Carver
and Brierly occupied the remainder of the concern. The
learned counsel here pointed out the principle of Thorn-
ton's machine, which was placed in front of the bar, and
took up considerable space, and observed that there was a
great difference between this machine and that known as
Dyer's which was the one generally in use before the pa-

patented machine had been In Dyer's the lea-
ther was moved ; in the patent machine, the head-work ;
in fact, the latter differed from the former in four mate-
rial respects—namely, the motion of the head-work upon
a fixed notched bar ; secondly, the reverse motion of the
head-work • thirdly, the drawing of the sheet ; and
fourthly, the suspension of the jaw frame. It has been
already observed that Thornton had tried a good many
models—some with loose and others with fixed notched

bars, but that he was unable to discover the perfect one
until December, 1841. He then proceeded to get his
patent, but being a person in humble circumstances, a

. .. .
gentleman of the name of Williamson advanced him the
necessary amount of money for the purpose. During the
time that he was making the models, Carver was constantly

on the premises to know what he was about. Report had li
gone about the country that he was making the discovery
of a new machine; several were anxious to find out of
what it consisted ; but, before the date of the patent, no
one had ever invented such a machine. From December,
1811, to June, 1842, Mr. Thornton's attention was called
to make the machine as perfect as possible, and having
been assisted by a person named Robert Shaw, he speci-
fied his patent on the 21st of June, 1842. That specifi-
cation was drawn in the usual form ; but Mr. Thornton
bad then the mortification of finding that many of the
persons who had obtained surreptitious access to his
workshop, were constructing machines precisely similar in
principle as his own, and selling them about the neigh-
bourhood. In consequence, however, of his having fallen
into difficulties about this time, he was unable to resist
their infringements, and was compelled, in 1842, to
assign the patent to Williamson, who sold it .to Bentley,
the plaintiff, in 1843, who was at present the rightful
owner. Nevertheless, the parties who originally went
into Thornton's workshop,l continued to go on with
their piracy, and formed themselves into a league,
for the purpose of carrying out their objects, still
more effectually. There was no doubt that the patent
was a good and valuable one, and that the defendant, by
infringing it, had subjected himself to an action at law.
The learned counsel went on to show that he should be
able to disprove the several pleas put on the record
by the defendant, and that the patent was lesser in price
than Dyer's, and that it saved a considerable amount of
wages.
He then called a number of witnesses to prove the va
luable nature of the patent, and the mode in which it had
been infringed in principle by the defendant ; but the
court adjourned at seven o'clock, before all the witnesses
for the plaintiff had been heard.