Llnrravs Brick-inakincc JUachitie 



105 



bricks, places the bricks on the portable board 

 beyond the wires. 



This colourable imitation of Mr Murray's 

 in\ention led that gentleman, in Januar}- 

 1869, to apply to the Court of Chancery for 

 an injunction against Messrs Clayton, to re- 

 strain them from manufacturing and selling 

 these machines, upon the grounds that they 

 v/ere infringements of Mr Murray's patent ; 

 that these machines embodied, in fact, but a 

 transposition of the parts, and a reversing of 

 the action of Mr Murray's apparatus. Mr 

 Murray's patent, we may mention, was dated 



the first and true inventor, and had produced, 

 as to the utility and the de facto novelty of his 

 invention, a mass of evidence — as to which 

 there had been no cross-examination and no 

 contradiction — " in my mind," said his lord- 

 ship," stronger almost than any I have ever 

 witnessed in any case in this court." The 

 witnesses in the case were engineers, a super- 

 intendent of Government works, and practi- 

 cal brickmakers, the sum of whose evidence 

 went to shew that the invention was both 

 efficient and original. One of the witnesses 

 spoke to the bricks being worth 2s. a-thousand 



June 1S66, Messrs Clayton's being dated 

 September 1S68. The cause came before 

 A'ice-Chancellor Bacon, who dismissed the 

 bill with costs in January last. The Vice- 

 Chancellor came to the conclusion that the 

 plaintiff's patent was invalid on the ground 

 that it has been anticipated by prior inven- 

 tions. Conscious of the strength of his cause, 

 ]Mr Murray appealed to the Lords Justices, 

 and they on the 6th of last month delivered 

 their judgment entirely and unreservedly in 

 his favour. In delivering judgment Lord 

 Justice James observed that Mr Murray had 

 given his own statement of his having been 



more than those made by ordinary machines, 

 while Mr Bernays, the Government engineer, 

 spoke very highly of the superiority of the 

 apparatus over those in general use. To sum 

 up, the Lords Justices Avere of opinion that 

 there had been no anticipation. They con- 

 sidered the plaintiff's case was fully made out, 

 and they granted him a perpetual injunction 

 against the defendants, who had to pay the 

 costs of the suit. There can be no question 

 as to the perfect equity of this decision, and 

 the only wonder in our mind is how Vice- 

 Chancellor Bacon could possibly have arrived 

 at the conclusion he did. 



