The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-08-12 00:00:00

INFRINGEMENT OF FATtiNT RIGHTS,

SMITH v. WATSON.—This was an action to recover com-
Pensation in damages for the infringement of a patent. The
Plaintiff is Mr. Smith, the inventor of wire rope for standing
rigging in ships, and the defendant is a rope manufacturer, in
London. The pleas were lengthy. The defendant pleaded
amongst other matters, that the plaintiff was not the in-
ventor—that it was not such a manufacture as the act of par-
liament contemplated should be made the subject of the pa-
tent—that it was in use previous to the granting of the
Patent L--that it was not a new invention, &c.
Mr. Hiudmarsh appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Currie
for the defendant.
Mr. HlND:kw:sir stated the case to the jury. He said the
Plaintiff sought compensation for the infringement of a patent
granted to him by his late Majesty, for the invention of wire
ropes to be used for the rigging of ships, and for a new mode
of fixing the rigging. The invention, he believed, had been
discovered on the continent for the purpose of suspension
bridges, but it had never been used for the rigging of ships
Previous to the granting of tile patent. It had been found
that the wire rope was of great advantage to the rigging of
and vessels, that it was stronger with less substance
than hemp, and that it was not affected by the weather, and
was much cheaper than the common hempen rope. After
describing the mode in which the rope was manufactured,
and stating the nature of the specification, the learned gentle-
Man called the following witnesses
Nlim• Quellan was then called, and said he was a master
nigger, in Liverpool. He was upwards of seventy-two years
old, and had been in trade since 1803. He had rigged a
number of vessels, and was acquainted with all sorts of
rigging. Before 1835, never heard of wire rigging. Has
fitted many vessels with wire rigging—amongst the rest, the
Great Liverpool, a steamer of 1,400 tons. The shrouds were
composed of wires in straight lines, of the same description
as Mr. Smith's patent rope. He thought the wire rope was
better than hempen. It was smaller, stronger, and held less
Wind. Witness fitted the John Garrow, in 1835, and had
again refitted her since. The wire rigging had lasted very
well. He is now engaged in fitting the Oriental.
been in Cross-examined by Mr, It. Cuiuue.—Since steamers have
n existence, chains and iron have been used about the
chimneys. Never knew a wire shroud before.
George Bibles, a rope-maker, Mr. Shaw, of the City of
Dublin Steam Packet Company, John Grantham, Esq., and
other witnesses, gave similar evidence, and testified to the
great utility of the plaintiff's inventions. They had been
applied to about twenty of her Majesty's ships, and thirty
vessels in Liverpool.
The admission of the patents, the specifications, and the
fact that the defendant had infringed them, were then put in
and read.

This closed the plaintiff's case.
Mr. CURRIE then contended before his lordship that the
invention was not a manufacture within the meaning of the
statute of James, for which a patent could be granted, that
the specification applied to all metal used as rigging, and that
it was not a new invention.
The learned JUDGE, however, overruled the objections,
and directed a verdict for the plaintiff, giving to the defend-
ant liberty to move to enter a nonsuit, in case the court above
should be of a different opinion to his lordship.
A verdict was accordingly recorded for the plaintiff—da-
mages Is .

Mfr. HisDmAnsH applied to his lordship for a certificate
that it was to try a right, in order to secure the plaintiff his
costs, which was granted.

SMITH V. WATSON

In this action, in which the same parties appeared, and
which was for an infringement of a patent granted in the
Year 1839, for the manufacture of twisted cord of rope formed
of iron or metal wire. It was admitted that the defendant
had infringed the patent, and that the damages should be
one shilling ; but the defendant contended that twisted wire
rope or cord had been used previous to the granting of the
letter of patent, as, for instance, a toasting-fork and on a por-
ter bottle.

The learned JUDGE, however, directed a verdict for the
Plaintiff, giving leave to the defendant as in the last action.

LIABILITY OF SURETIES.—PARKES V. RUSSELL.
This was an action brought by Mr. Wm. Parkes, a farmer
and coal merchant, residing at Nineveh, near Birmingham,
in the county of Warwick, to recover from the defendant, a
farmer, residing in the same neighbourhood, the sum of
t 387 Bs. 7d., half the amount of a bill of exchange, to
Which the defendant had signed his name as co-surety with
the plaintiff and two other persons who have become in-
solvent.
Messrs. Dundas and Martin were for the plaintiff, and
Nlessrs. Knowles and Cowling for the defendant.
It aPpeared from the facts, as adduced in evidence, that
the,plaintiff had been in the habit of advancing money at
‘arious times to a person named Riley, and that in October,
1840
Rikv being indebted to Messrs. Greenway's bank, at
Varwiek, -to the amount of £774 17s. Id., they pressed him
for Payment, when the bank agreed to accept a bill for the
stnu due, on his giving security, and, accordingly, the bill
was signed by the plaintiff and defendant, and also by Riley
and his father. Shortly afterwards, the plaintiff obtained
froth Riley a warra,it of attorney, and a bill of sale
for £3,500, and in the following January judgment was
entered up, and the property of Riley was seized under an ex-
ecution. About the same time Riley was made a bankrupt, and
co.nsequence of an actionhaving been commenced against the
sheriff to recover the amount of money realised under the sale
a compromise was effected on the plaintiff paying half the
amount realised, £1,030 being given up to the assignee under
the
tiat, the remaihing part of the sum being for goods which
due, to another party. In June, 1841, the bill became
uae, and the plaintiff and defendant were applied to for the
amount. The latter said he was unable to pay the sum. but
g the plaintiff would take up the bill he promised to reim-
burse him, but had not done so. The defence set up was,
that When the defendant signed the bill the plaintiff said he
l!oull take care he should not suffer, and that has the plain-
La had raised money under the execution from Rily's goods
and atock, he had paid the bill out of the proceeds of that
!ale, and therefore had no cause of action, for the £1,030
had not been paid to the assignee of Riley nntil last March.
.The learned JUDGE, in summing up the case, said the
plaintiff was entitled to a verdict for half the amount of the

The jury retired, and after being out of court nearly an
hour, found for the plaintiff. Damages, £l3B 10s.
The court then adjourned.

Th , CROWN COURT.—YESTEILDAY.
o , edock learned Judge took his seat on the bench at nine
Ed
placonlund Hardman, previously convicted of burglary, was
at the bar, and was sentenced to six months' impri-
sontnent.
Martin
eitELLIN'S CASE—SENTENCE ON COPELAND.
th Copeland (convicted on the previous day) was
en brought up. His LORDSHIP stated that there were
!orne points in the case upon which he had consulted his
learned brother, and which he considered were worthy of
ctinic
olinisderation ; but, after mature deliberation, they did not
the prisoner had been that these points tended to palliate the charge of which
passed sentence upon th
impri-
sonment in Lancasternefaosuuned. guilty. His Lordship then
e prisoner of twelve months' impri-
Lordship proceeded to
This concluded the business of the Crown Court, and his
Atkinson v. Marshal!'
CLAIM FOR I, try some civil causes.
RECOVERY OF GOODS.
brought for the recover 7);rhis action was one in trover,
pieces of mouseline-de-taine a sum of £376, value of tiB4
witted the defendant to take
, which the plaintiff had per-
alleged he had retained. for disposal, but which it was
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff,
and Messrs. Atherton and Brandt for the defendant.
was
Man elderlyr. KNOWLlady , ES stated the case to
businessf of a manufac-
ant
ti
tithe Jury. The plaintiff
carrying on
elid a, who was a
view to obtain
turer at Colne. In the year 1840, tibe
defendant,
commission agent, went over to Colne, with
the business of the manufacturers in that district.
A gen-
tleman, named Askew, was with him, and introduced him to
Mrs. Atkinson, who let him have the goods
to
account. The defendant afterwards sold them,asnecil on her
ff was preferred by Messrs. Potter and Lewin, of Mancahelaim
Who said the goods belonged to them. 'rule plaintii ester,
had had
dealings with the firm named, and it would appear that
th
materials (the warp and weft) of which the goods were
mae
nufactured, were supplied by them to the plaintiff, -
who was
employed to manufacture them.
Several witnesses were called, and proved the delivery of
the goods, and the demand made by Messrs. Potter, and
their dealings with the plaintiff.
Mr. BRANDT contended for the defence that there was no
evidence of a conversion. Mr. ATH I: RTON followed on the
same side. The defendant had refused to give up the goods
on the ground that he was doubtful as two claims were
made) to whom they in reality b lourred. lie submitted
c . ~, _..
there r HIS .LORDSIIIr,
however,
Was no evidence to go the Ju..y.
nowever, considered there was.
Mr. BRANDT having addressed the jury for the defence,
Several witnesses were examined, to show that the goods
were
manufactured by John Atkinson, the son of the
Plaintiff, out of materials se l• d 'o him by Potter and Co.,
pp ie , . . and that that house hadthe transaction
no legal connexion in
With Mrs. Atkinson.
Mr. K 1 .
th now.es, for the plaintiff, said, there was no doubt
e goods had been received by ' M. • hall.lt
had also been the defendant ats
shown by the evidence given on the part of the
, that the business was transacted in the name of

1 Mary Atkinson, and not in the name of the ton Sohn, ftg it
was evident that the son could not carry on the bunineoc, he
having recently become a bankrupt, The son had, indeed,
managed the business for his mother, who was an aged
person ; but he was only an agent, be having a knowledge of
the business. The only question was, to whom the goods
sent to Marshall really belonged.
[lt appeared that the number of pieces manufactured of
the mouseline-de-laine, at Mrs. Atkinson's's, was 63,264
pieces, and the pieces short delivered were stated to be 1932.]
The Learned JUDGE drew the attention of the jury to the
principal portions of the evidence; and it being agreed that
an amount of £3 admitted to be due to the defendant should
be paid, and also that another smaller sum should be al-
lowed ; the jury immediately found a verdict for the plain-
tiff for the residue of the claim—namely, £241 6s.

BARTON V. ASHCROFI
This was an action for trespass and damage, to meet which
the defendants had paid 20s into court as a sufficient recom-
pense, but which was not considered sufficient by the
plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Barton, was a wheelwright, and had suc-
ceeded a Mr. Squires as tenant of the farm of Wood-Side,
in Smithdown-lane, near this town, in May, 1840. Squires
had been blind, and being unable to pursue the farming
business, left the farm to retire to Cumberland, his native
country. Previous to going, he sold his farming utensils,
&c., by auction, and amongst other articles sold was a tur-
nip-cutting machine, which was knocked down to the
defendant for £3 10s., which he paid some time afterwards to
the auctioneer, leaving the machine however on the farm until
December last, when he went and demanded it. The farm-
servant present, an old man in plaintiff's employ, refused to
give it up. Defendant had taken with him five other men,
and on its being refused took the farm gate off its hinges,
and seeing the article in the shippon, by a hole through the
door, forcibly opened that door, bending the lock and injuring
the fastenings. The plaintiff, it appeared, was at the sale,
and knew that the defendant had bought the implement ; and
the former considered the 20s. enough for the trespass and
damage, which latter was proved to be very little. The jury,
on hearing that all was again put to rights in half-an-hour
by the farm-servant, whose wages were but half-a-crown a
day, thought so too, and returned a verdict for the defendant
on both counts.