The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1851-10-07 00:00:00

substances, wt
the combi
humid

exposed to heat, evolved steam or moisture,
efeet of the moisture and the material, kept

The defendant Sold Safes and Boxes,'
which he represented
to be made under a Patent granted to Messrs. Tanr, 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
in 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 Muspratt 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 according to
their specification

His iloNoua stated theprincipl

le on c

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, whereas Milnees 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 long enjoy-
ment of the Patent which was granted in 1840, the result of the
trial at law, and the clear opinion in the plaintiff's favour
expressed by the Lord Chief Justice, and in which his Honour
concurred, stating that lie considered Milner's was a Patent
claiming every mode by which the liquid. &c., 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

LORD CAMPBELL AND A SPECIAL JURY
MILNER v. HARRISON.

(7he latter selling Tann's Safes and Boxes, and advertising
himself assole proprietor of Tann's Patent Safes, Chests, 8,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 applicitiirin 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 'he 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 i 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 w Q ”roved to
have used the very materials in the Safes and V Yes ^ had
tested and sold, which he had seen used by the P ntiff
when in their service as Shopman, from 1846 to ltr*v. This
was followed by Sir F. Thesiger's reply for the Defenua,,t, 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, t.e 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. Ile 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. lie 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

itesttons they were to detert

they were all for their determination. With regard to the in.
fringement. be would repeat„thedirection he had before given

...-.... _
this issue was hardly diiputed, 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 the
heat,
boxeatti and the steam thus produced was to he in-
closed moisten the papers so that they might be
in
preserved from the effects of fire. There had been several wit-
nesses of respectability on both sides, although severalof those
called for the defendant 'had only recently turned their atten-
tian 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 baying an outer box, the great object was to in-
troduce some non-conducting substance, so that the operation
of heat might he 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
Calituebnbts's patents,yt and it would be for them to say whether those
t confined to introducing non-conductors.
p were not n
The object of both was to save papers from destruction, bet the
mode and operation was the qnestion in dispute. He bad been
puzzled to know the difference between the two patents of Marr
and Chubb, and be 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 that issue for the defendant •
and if they thought it wasnot, 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 lie 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, 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. Allthe 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 hear 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, lie could not say that they were not to look to Tann's
specification, if they came to the conclusion that the boxes 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 tnoisture 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 the
defendant. They were at liberty to find that issue for the
plaintiff, although the detendant did not use any pipes, tubes,
or artificial vessels. If they thought the process was substan-
tially the same as that mentioned in the plaintiff's specification,
they would find tl,at issue for the plaintiff. 'They must bear in
mind that the plaintiff said,'" I claim as my invention the in-
troduction or application of the combined effect in chambered
boxes, or depositories of the moisture and material kept humid
in the space surrounding the innermost box, and its contents,
without in any way being confined to the material or liquid
employed, or the manner in which it may be distributed or
arranged, in order to produce the desired effect of protecting
boxes, safes, or other depositories enclosing papers, or other
materials, from fire." It was on the construction of these
words that he had directed them in point of law, that the de.
fendant may have infringed the patent, although lie did not
make use of tubes, or pipes, or artificial vessel& With this
exception, lie left it for them to say if the defendant lied in-
fringed the patent ; if they found that it was so, damages not
being in dispute, the sum of forty shillings would be sufficient:
but they were to consider, themselves, which way they would
find their verdict.
The Jury, after a short deliberation, said they found their
verdict upon all the issues for the plaintiff.

Upon this verdict, establishing the validity of Milner's Pa-
tents, to fully confirmed by his Honour' the Vice-Chancellor's

decision, runner pruLeyuniy,b iii,nancery are ueing amine(
against all parties Selling, Holding, or Using these safes 01
Boxes.