304 Anfwer to Arator^s Letters on Thrapj'wg Machines. Aug. 



nic he pretends to be, he would not require me to inform jiim, 

 that a mill built by theory will fall very (hort of expe£l't.ion 

 "when put i'Uo praflice. I (liall only add, that Mr Wi'iiam 

 Tunftall of Minhall in Yorkfhire, has erected a mill, which, 

 W'th one horfe, one man, and three children, thrafhes 50 

 bufhels of wheat in fix hours. A trial was lately made at Earl 

 Shauefbury's, in Dotfetfliirf, betwixt this and feveral other 

 thnfhing mills, when its fuperiarity was completely afcertained. 

 Bv iHis. Aiaror's calculation of a boll in the hour for each horfe 

 is completely refuted. The late Mr Palmer of Maxftock, War- 

 ^vickihire, alfo Invented a mill, which was much approved of 

 there. I am, Sir, A. G. 



January 28. 1804. 



OBSERVATIONS UPON THE ABOVE BY THE CONDUCTOR. 



For various reafons the above letter is printed verbatim ; there- 

 fore we judge it neceflary to correct a mifreprefentation therein 

 contained. We allude to what is dated refpedling the difpute 

 betwixt Mr Melkle and Mr Railrick, which, we exprefsly main- 

 ,tain, never came before a jury, confequently the court could 

 not find * that the thrafiing mill was not entirely the invention of 

 Mr Meikle. ' Our correfpondent flated this circumllance in his 

 firll letter \ but, fatisfied that he was in an error, we ventured 

 to expunge the paiTage. However, as the ftory is repeated, we 

 5;ive it in his own words^ though it is no more than diftributive 

 juftlce to accompany the poifon with a fuitable antidote. 



Mr Meikle, in the year 1799, brought an aflion againft Mr 

 Railrick in the Court of King's Bench ; and had the trial pro- 

 .ceeded, fufHcient evidence would have been given to convi£l de- 

 fendant of an infringement upon plaintiff's patent right. lu 

 tht eveninrr before jhe day of trial, a meeting was held, by fe- 

 veral of Mr Meiklc's friends, with the Counfel employed (the 

 Honourable Thomas ErCKine and Mr Wood), when, after hear- 

 ing the nature and extent of the evidence, Mr Erflcine faid, 

 * Gentlemen, your proof is very good, and I entertain no doubt 

 of getting a favourable verdicl j but can you fubftantiate that 

 defendant took money for the machines which he erected ? ' 

 Upon being told that the agent or folicitor in the profecution 

 had not called for fuch evidence, Mr Erlkine replied, * Poftpone 

 the trial till next fittings. Be then prepared to {l)Ow that de- 

 /eudant received value for the machines erected, without which 

 fhere can be no infringement; for, was he to fet up in defence, 

 that the work was executed out of love and favour, and you 



coultl 



