78 



THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE. 



and herd with other graziera' stock. The plaiutifif was Mr. 

 Senior, of Broughton hall, near Aylesbury, a magistrate for the 

 county, and a well-known grazier ; the defendant being Mr. 

 Self, the manager of tlie Loudon and County Bank at Ayles- 

 bury. The action was brought to recover the sum of £19 193., 

 for damages from the negligence of the defendant. It wag 

 allpged that the plaintiff had, at great trouble, secured a. pure 

 breed of Devons, which were depasturing in a field adjoining 

 Mr. Self's grounds, in which was a bull, which trespassed on 

 the plaintiff's grounds, and associated with his stock ; in con- 

 sequence of which the plaintiff said a most valuable heifer, the 

 produce of the bull which had won the prize at Norwich, and 

 had never been beaten, and a cow which he had bought of 

 Lord Macclesfield, v^ as in calf. He (plaintiff) said it was im- 

 portant that his stock should remain pure. He said he was 

 offered 30 guineas for the produce of the heifer which was the 

 cause of tile action; but owing to Mr. Self's bull having comt 

 mitted the trespass, he sold the heifer and calf (which ough- 

 to have been worth £40) for £17 lOs. The witnesses stated 

 that Mr. Self's fences were very bad. Mr. G. L. Brown, bar- 

 rister, for the defence, contended that the case had nothing to 

 do with the breeding of cattle, but was merely a little bit of 

 private quarrelling. It was said that there was an assumed 

 likeness between the calf and his suspected sire ; but there 

 was no daguerreotype, audofcourae no likeness could be proved. 

 He contended, therefore, that there was no proof that the 

 plaintiff bad sustained damage nt the defendant's hands. He 

 called upon the jury to give the plaintiff the smallest con- 

 ceivable coin in full satisfaction for any conceivable injury he 

 bad sustained. Various witnesses, including Mr. Gadsden, 

 the extensive auctioneer and valuer, and Mr. H. Phillips, the 

 well-known dealer of Thame, were called on the part of the 

 defendant; and they swore that there was nothing extraordi- 

 nary in the breed of the plaintiff's stock, and that the heifer 

 and calf were not worth more than £17 or £18. Other wit- 

 nesses swore (in opposition to what had been urged on the 

 part of the plaintiff) that the defendant's fences were in good 

 condition. His Honour, Mr. C. Temple, summed up at great 

 length. The jury retired, and, after being absent about half- 

 aa-hour, found a verdict for the plaintiff — damages Is. Im- 

 mediately the verdict was announced, the court, which was 

 densely crowded throughout the whole five hours the case 

 lasted, rang with a shout the like of which has never, perhaps, 

 been uttered there on any such occasion. It was, however, of 

 course, suppressed by the officers and the judge. 



ROMAINE'S CANADIAN STEAM 

 CULTIVATOR. 



TO THE EDITOK OF THE ENGINEER. 



Sir, — Certain errors having been, inadvertently or other- 

 wise, promulgated respecting the above invention, calculated 

 to depreciate the fctSciency of the " Cultivator," and to detract 

 the lionour of the invention from the rightful and sole in- 

 ventor, we shall feel obliged if you will give prominency in your 

 journal to the following remarks in order that the public may 

 be rightly informed on the subject. 



A writer in the Illustrated London News of Oct. 3rd, 1857, 

 whilst strongly commending the invention, makes the following 

 delusive remark : 



" Crosskill's Romaine Cultivator. — We give an illustration 

 of the new steam-culiivator, invented by Mr. Robert Ro- 

 maine, a Canadian ; improved and manufactured by Messrs. 

 Crosskill, the eminent agricultural implement makers, of 

 Beverley, Yorkshire, whose name is so well known iu connec- 

 tion with the clod-crusher. .... Crosskdl's Romaine steam 

 cultivator differs from all others hitherto brought before 

 the public, in entirely dispensing with ropes, &c." 



In reference to the above paragraph, we deem it necessary 

 to state that Mr. Robert Romaine, of Peterborough, Canada, 

 but now residing at Beverley, in Yorkshire, is the sole and 

 entire inventor, and that the whole of the improvements that 

 have been made in it have been effected by himself, and not 

 by another party, as therein implied; and further, that the 

 machines are manufactured by the trustees of the Beverley 

 Iron Works, from Mr. Romaine's own suggestions and im- 

 provements. 



In the same paper of the same date it is subsequently 

 affirmed that Mr. Romaine sent one of his machines (the 

 second that was built) to the " Great Exhibition of Paris in 

 1855, where the inventor, Mr. Romaine, was one of the 

 Canadian commissioners. This machine, like Mr. Mechi's, 

 was to be drawn by a pair of horses, the steam power being 

 employed in turning the cultivator. In Paris Mr. W. Cross- 

 kill saw it, and thought so well of it that he took it up, and 

 the firm have spent two years and some thousand pounds in 

 bringing it to its present state of efficiency. The third ma- 

 chine would not steer or travel, until the wheel arrangements 

 had been changed to the present form and proportions." 



With regard to the above statement, which is decidedly and 

 injuriously incorrect, it is necessary to state that the second 

 machine, which was intended for the Exhibition at Paris in 

 1855, worked on the plains of St. Denis during the summer, 

 and tilled the land. As well as the present one it was not 

 drawn by horses, but propelled itself over the land by steam- 

 power, being only deficient in its boiler and steering apparatus. 

 The third machine, being the first built by the trustees of the 

 Beverley Iron Works, was perfect in its steering apparatus, 

 and travelled equally as well as the present one. Tlie state- 

 ment that the firm have spent some thousand pounds in bring- 

 ing it to its perfection requires no answer, as the trustees of 

 the iron works are alone the responsible manufacturers. 



The same errors have been fallen into or communicated to a 

 writer in Bdl's Messenger, of September 21st, 1857, in which 

 paper it is stated : " Romaine and Crosskill's steam culti- 

 vator. — On Friday, the 11th instant, Messrs. Crosskill broke 

 the silence they have so long maintained as to the steam cul- 

 tivator, which tliey entered but did not produce at Chelms- 

 foid and at S.disbury." 



The claim Mr. Romaine enforces as the sole inventor and 

 improver of the machine, as stated before, is a satisfactory 

 reply to the mistakes disseminated by such an incorrect ver- 

 sion of the invention. In the same article it is afterwards 

 stated : '' The patentees estimate that it (the machine) can 

 do nearly an acre an hour, and work at night as well as day." 



In reference to this q\iotation, we beg to say that Mr. Ro- 

 maine has the sole credit of the patent, and with him alone is 

 vested the power of granting licenses for its manufacture. The 

 writer in the same'paper afterwards adds — "At that time (that 

 is during the Paris Exhibition) it could not steer, and could 

 not work without breaking down." 



It will be observed that the writers ia the London News as 

 well as in Bell's Alessenyer — probably one and the same party 

 — have fallen into the same error, and made the same mis- 

 statement. As the repetition of these mistakes and erroneous 

 representations iu other papers might prove both prejudicial 

 to the inventor and the invention, we trust you will do justice 

 to both, as well as to the manufacturers and the public, by 

 giving insertion in your journal to these very necessary cor- 

 rections. R. Romaine, and T. E. Turner, 



(for the Trustees of the Beverley 



Beverley, Nov. \Zth, 1857. Iron Works). 



ALUM IN BREAD. 



Sir, — More alarm may perhaps have been excited upon 

 this subject than it requires ; for when used with sound 

 flour, merely to whiten the bread, and in quantity not ex-' 

 ceeding 1 oz. to the Inishel of flour, it would not be likely 

 much to aftect a healthy stomach. But even then it is an 

 illegal and dishonest practice, and might hurt weak diges- 

 tions; and when used in arger quantitj-, with unsound flour 

 to give it the appearance of sound, the unsoundness of the 

 flour and the increased quantity of alum are likely to be 

 very injurious in daily use, particularly to the aged and in- 

 firm poor who have little or no other strengthening diet. 

 And this i.s_ probably the way iu which most of it ia'used. 



The precise detection of the alum is a nice point. 



But there has just been suggested a simple method of dis- 

 covering it, not only easy but rather amusing. Many house- 

 keepers are aware that logwood strikes a purple dye with 

 alum, but not so evidently without ; so, if we put a slice of 

 bread into a solution of logwood, and let it soak three or 

 four hours, and then take it out, if it contains alum it will 

 have taken the purple dye, but not otherwise. Jtaking 



