The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-04-25
ANOTHER CYANIDE DECISION.
Very Peculiar Ruling By the English
Appellate Court.

ApPC1&lG NOurT.
A commission is now IN this country
collecting evidence for use in the
Asouth African and Mexican cases
which involve the validity of the Mac
Arthu--Forrest cyanide patent pro-
cesses. and John Williams, formerly
manager at the hex, is in New York
as one of the experts engaged in the
cases. The Mercur case will come I'M
on demurrer to the complaint early
!n May When the trial on the mer
its IS taken up it is anticipated that
The evidence will show that the
American patents were issued even
when the process had been in use
here for years.
Regarding the decision of the En-
Elish court, the Engineering and Min
ing Journal has the following to say:
The case of the CaSsel Gold Elk
tracing company Ghe Macarthur
Forrest patents) versus the Syanide
Gold Recovery syndicate Pielsticker
Patentsl which was appealed from
the decision of Justice Romer against
the MacATthur-Forest patents, has
Aagain been decided adversely by the
TSourt OF appeals 0ord Halsbury,
Lord Justice Lindley and Lord Jus
tice A I. SMITH. While this dectS-
ION has been against the Macarthur
Forrest patents, it mas been so only
because the court could not separate
the broad first claim for the use of
the cyanozen as a solvent Of gold.
which it decided had no foundation,
from the second claim, which was for
dilute solution of cyanide of potas-
eiun, and the selective action Of such
dilute solutions which the court held
to De proven.
The court held that there is no
years prior to the patent in question
iaacAIti3ur-Fo rresD, it was common
knowledge that cyanide of potassium
would act as a solvent OF gold" but,
The court adds, at was also IN our
Judgment proved that prior TO the
plaintiffs patent it was not known
that cyanide OF potassium would act
as a solvent so as 10 extract gold
from its ore.
The court. referring TO the claim of
-...ire .CSIacA n.tllur Forrest patents for
.9,e- SseIective action Of dilute solu-
tso,,e ~ cyanide, say: 'sThe selective
e.etion claimed by the plaintiffs for
fba application Of u very dilute solu-
zion. Containing an extremely small
quantity OF cyanide OF potassium, to
ore corsaini1rg gold has, in our judg-
.rlelt, been proved.
The. court says: by far the most
A,rnida bic part of the case as regards
Ne piaiatiff's patent is this. Upon
he true construction of the plaintiffs
ssbecidcation, have they or not claimed
for the use OF any cyanide OF potas-
1In in solution, no matter what, for
2. AZ extraction Of gold from its ore?
If tn, y have we agree with Mr.. Justice
Romer that the patent is bad"
'-for It is then claim not only 70 apply
a We,l-known substance 10 another
well-known substance without stint or
Limitation, and thus deprive, during
the continuance of the patent, the pub
lie from using what they were there
fore entitled 70 do. but it is also claiTr
for that which is of no utility, for. as
before stated, unless cyanide Of potas-
SUM be used in the limited manner the
plaintiffs by their specification and
second claim state it is to be used, it
brings into solution the baser metals
copiointly with the essld and no bene-
fetal result is attained. If in the spec
tfication there ha6 but been the second
csekaa ACNE, l. e. for the dilute solution