The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-09-05 00:00:00

NISI PRIUS COUit'l

AUTURDAV

rdict for

the plaintiff for £2Ol, th
due on the averazes.

i to be the balance

WOOD PAVEMENT.—STEAD V. WILLIAMS AND OTHERS.
This was an action for an infringement of a patent for
the paving of roads, streets, &c., with timber or wooden
blocks. Mr. Martin and Mr. Webster were for the plain-
tiffs; Mr. Warren and Mr. Hoggins for the defendants.
The plaintiff is Mr. David Stead, f tuerly a merchant
of the city of Landon. The defend nits are, nominally,
Mr. Lewis Williams and several others, who are the
surveyors of streets and paving at Mancht-ster ; but the
action was really against the Metropolitan Wood Pave-
ment Company. About the year 1836 or 1837 Mr.
Maestrom, a Russian merchant, with whom Mr. Stead
had had transactions in business, came to England, hav-
ing, whilst in Russia, devoted his attention to the mode
of pavement in that country, which 'was done in a great
measure by wood. He communicated with Mr. Stead,
who paid a great deal of attention to the matter, and ma-
terially improved the scheme; and it was the intention of
Mr. Maestrom and Mr. Stead, in 1833 or 1837, to take
out a patent; but Mr. Maestrom found it necessary to
return to Russia, and thus frustrated that intention. On
the 19th of May, ]B3B, the plaintiff, however, took out a
patent ; and this was the one to which attention was di-
rected. Four months were allowed for enrolment ; but,
as six months was the usual period, the plaintiff imagined
that that would be the period allowed to him, and inad-
vertently allowed the four months to elapse before he
discovered his mistake. On the 21st of June, 1841, how-
ever, an act of parliament was passed, confirming the
patent to Mr. Stead, as though it had been regularly filed
within the prescribed period. A second patent was after-
wards obtained, but that related more particularly to the
form of blocks. The first patent, which, it was alleged,
had been infringed, was for an invention consisting of a
mode of paving with blocks of similar sizes and dimen-
sions, of either a sexagonal, triangular, or square form,
so as to make a level road or surface. The defendants
pleaded, amongst other things, that the patent was not an
original invention ; that it was not useful ; and that it was
in use prior to the granting of the patent. Witnesses
were called to show that Deansgate, St. Ann's-square,
and other places in Manchester had been paved with wood
on the plan for which the plaintiff had obtained a patent.
Mr. HoGGiNs addressed the Jury for the defendants,
contending, that the so-called invention of Mr. Stead was,
in principle, precisely the same as that of Mr. Herd, pub-
lished in the year 1836; but that the appropriator had not
sufficient ingenuity to remove the objections which had
been brought against the plan, and which, in fact, rendered
it useful. Mr. Stead, having thus appropriated the ideas
of other persons, and having, from the strong feeling
against ordinary paving which was arising, seen the ex-
tensive demand which was likely to arise for wood pave-
ment, got out a patent, and then claimed to have the sole
right to pave with wood the whole of England, Wales. and
Berwick-on-Tweed. The Metropolitan Wood Company,
however, having formed an improved plan, and obtained
a patent, did not seek any such monopoly. The learned
counsel pointed out, that Sir William Worsley, in 1832,
laid down an hexagonal wood pavement, at Ovingham-
hall, and said that the pavement was similar to the one of
which Mr. Stead claimed to be the true originator. Se-
veral engineers and scientific men were called to prove
that the plan of the plaintiff was not original. The last
of the witnesses, the Secretary of the London Wood Pave-
ment Company, admitted, on his cross-examination, that
Mr. Stead was the first person who laid down wood-pave-
ment, on an extensive scale, in the streets of London.
Mr. MARTIN, in his reply, scouted the idea of a mer-
chant like Mr. Stead having read in scientific journals
about the scheme of 11r. Herd. Mr. Herd had himself
seen the wood-pavement in Russia, and why might not
Mr. Stead have got his information independently from a
native of Russia? Mr. Herd merely communicated what
he had seen ; but he expressed a doubt whether such a
road would ever answer for heavy burdens ; whilst Mr.
Stead saw the practicability of the plan, with some slight
modification, and actually carried it out.
His LORDSHIP, in summing up, said that the jury
would have several matters to decide in this case. There
was no doubt that the defendants had done that which
amounted to an infringement, if the patent were good,
and, therefore, the first plea, of not guilty, would be for
the plaintiff. In the second plea the defendants said, that
the plaintiff was not the inventor, and that plea was
founded on the statute of James, the only authority for
the government granting a monopoly, which required that
a patent must be granted to the true and first inventor.
If, therefore, the jury should be of opinion that the Plain-
ct ioffu
nwt
ra
ys
hneowt
atshoeotiniovetinttieodr otof
athviesrmdiocclt eoooftphaavtiinsgsoien. "lisf
he obtained his information from a foreign country, that
would still leave him the true inventor in this country;
but, if he derived his information either from books or
from oral communication in this country which had given
to the public that knowledge, then he was not the true in-
ventor, and was not entitled to the patent. In the state-
ment which induced the crown to grant the patent the
plaintiff set forth, that he had derived his information
from a foreigner ; but he had produced no proof of that
before the jury. The defendant, on the contrary, said
that he would show, that books, extensively circulated in
the scientific world, had substantially communicated to
the public all the information which the plaintiff himself
had given them ; and if he, from those communications,
derived that knowledge which enabled him to take out the
patent, he could not convert to his private use that know-
ledge which had before been given to the public. But,
then, the defendant did not bring home to the plaintiff
the fact of his having seen those communications; and
the jury would have to say, whether the plaintiff derived
his information from abroad or from those books. It would
not deprive a man of an invention if another thought, of
the same thing in his head at the same time, but had not
carried it out into practice. The learned judge then
compared the plan of the plaintiff with those described by
Mr. Finlayson in March 1825 and Mr. Herd in .1834, and
observed that the germ of the idea of a wood pavement
was seen in the former, whilst, in his opinion, the latter -
was precisely similar to that of the plaintiff. As to seve-
ral other pleas, which resolved themselves into points of
law for his determination, he decided in favour of the
plaintiff. With reference to the plea that the plans of the
plaintiff had been in public use before the granting of the
patent, he thought that that had not been made out by
the evidence of small patches of rude wood pavement
having been laid down in private houses in several parts
of the kingdom, long anterior to the date of the patent;
but he was of opinion that, in the instance of the carriage
road laid down in hexagonal blocks by Sir Wm. Worsley,
the public use of the plan had been made out.
The Jury retired to consult at a quarter past four, and,
this being the last case on the list, his Lordship asked
whether it was necessary for him to stay for the verdict.
The counsel replied in the negative, and his lordship left
the court. The jury returned at twenty minutes to six
o'clock, with a verdict for the plaintiff; 40s. damages:—
(See advertisement.)
This terminated the business of the assizes.

THE CAUSE LIST : WEST DERBY HUNDRED.

The causes in the West Derby list have thus been dis-
posed of:—

Plaintiff-1, 4,5, 6, 8,9, 10, 11, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23,24,
27, 28, 32, 33, 31, 35, 36, 41, 43, 53, 54, 55, 59, 61, 66,
68, 70, 76.
Defendant-7, 31, 37, 44, 75, 78.
Referred-26, 52, 72.
Postponed-58.
Nonsuit-40, 63, 69.

Withdrawn-2,3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 22, 25, 29, 30,
38, 39, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 56, 57, 60, 62, 64,
65, 67, 71, 73, 74. 77.

.„,,,
EXECUTION OF THE CULPRIT lIIOGINSON..--,1 nis
wretched man, who was convicted at the late assizes or
the brutal murder of his child, was executed on Saturday
morning, at eight o'Clock, in front of the county gaol,
Stafford, in the presence of an immense concourse of per-
sons. At half past seven, all the authorities having arriv-
ed, they proceeded to the condemned cell, where the painful
ceremony of pinioning the arms was gone through. The
unhappy man appeared perfectly calm and resigned to his
fate. He approached and ascended the drop with a firm
ab9oda y , h
uarifteedr
step, and bade adieu to the governor, Mr. Brutton, in a
very affectionate manner, at the same time sheding tears.
The awful minute had now arrived ; he stood, whilst the
rope was adjusted and the cap drawn over his face, with
remarkable fortitude, evidently in deep and fervent prayer
After the lapse of a few seconds, the platform fell, and
hthaenguinng forhappy
abneinghoncera,sedwatso
cexotist.dowTnb,e
wimthiunßtph
MURDEROUS
Rwoaullss
AofTtThAe
and the crowd conducted themselves with the greatest
propriety.
naetatremßortiesdtolt,oa
mviullradiner, naamfamedilJyohbny
cgicaoALN D ThereDARING was
Rnool3dEtßuYrb.--anOcen,
charitably entertained and preserved
arke is a labourer, who, about two
suddenly thrown out of work, when,
monthsfwFr
hor
Clarke,i
mod ma y
h starvation.
robbedinheaed morning ,
bwe
being entirely destitute, a young man, named Maddicks,
a cowkeeper, who resided in a cottage about half a mile
from the high road, near the northern suburb of Bristol,
took him in and supported him. On Wednesday he beard
aleaasnnscdt
Mrs. Maddicks say, that, on the following day, she would
receive a sum of money, due to her for milk, and be after-
wards questioned her on the subject. On Thursday night,
as usual, the family retired to rest. Maddicks and his

wife and two children occupied one bed ; a little girl, who
was employed to assist in nursing their infant, slept on
the chairs by their bedside ; and the sister of Mrs. Mad%
dicks, who had nursed her in her confinement, in a bed
adjoining. Clarke was in an adjoining room. At day-
light, on Friday morning, the wife was awakened by
something striking her violently on the head. She looked
up, and saw Clarke with a poker in his hand. He struck
her twice more on the head and once on the ardr. The
sister then woke up and called out ; upon which the vil-
lain rushed upon her and struck her violently on the bead,
inflicting a terrible gash. So murderously intended was
the blow that the poker broke in two, and one part of it
flew with violence against a wall of the apartment,' and
then fell upon the bed. Mrs. Maddicks,
her husband, found him covered with blood and com-
pletely insensible. She thenhe
seized hold of Clarke, whom she called b 0
~
". :swat the
broke from her and made his escarp:
ffe.ref. hi. haste he
back of the premises, and g t_ _....!
-:dlert,hie bat behind him,
rried off some silver money which
udrpoopiipeadnoenireiiortf his
ii:: s"d the room afterwards, it was
f'"`" that
"ad on a shelf near the head of the bedstead.
had been ph..
times kept ;- but, as Mrs. Maddicks had not received the
money t e
money which she spoke of, fajiulemdpetdo ofindut owtlfhor;se ksbion'o.rngllo etayea
Maddicks insensible. The police officer found
wifheichbadhealnsoo
He had four
the head, one of which has • • external wounds on
injured the bone. The side
has seven wounds on the head,
which is over the temple. the most dangerous of
Clarke had not been taken
when the last acounts left Bristol.
rummaged
doübt
ea cbt
eodx . in which moneln