234 



THE INDIA RUBBER WORLD 



[April i, 1904. 



turers having stands were Messrs. Charles Macintosh & Co., 

 Limited, David Moseley & Sons, Limited, and The North British 

 Rubber Co., the Dunlop company, so regular at all shows, be- 

 ing on this occasion a conspicuous absentee. Macintosh's ex- 

 hibit was an attractive one, though not comprising any com- 

 pleted tires. Inner tubes of red rubber, solution, millerain 

 clothing, waterproof motor coats and rugs were prominent 

 among the numerous accessories for the motor trade supplied 

 by the firm. It may be mentioned that they make a specialty 

 of re-treading motor tires, vulcanizing the new tread to the old 

 cover. The North British exhibit is better described as that 

 of Michelin & Co., as all, or at any rate the bulk of the exhibits 

 were evidently from Clermont-Ferrand. The explanatory no- 

 tices were mostly in French, a somewhat novel feature in a 

 British show. Besides an attractive exhibit of accessories, the 

 pyramids of tires comprised round and square treads, the non- 

 slipping tread with steel inserts being prominent. Red rubber 

 inner tubes were to the fore here, as also with Messrs. Macintosh 

 and Moseley. At the time of my inspection the stand labelled 

 the Seddon Tyre Co. was a blank, and the only other tire com- 

 pany exhibiting was the Shrewsbury & Challiner, who showed 

 a special tire they have recently designed for motors. Appar- 

 ently no patent rights are claimed for this tire, the advan- 

 tages claimed for it being the superior mechanical attachment 

 which allows of the tube being taken out easily for repairs. 

 The company are large makers of wheels for various vehicles, 

 and with tires attached these formed the main feature of their 

 exhibit. I noticed a Mercedes car with violet colored tires of 

 Continental make, but found on inquiry that the color was 

 merely superficial and not indicative of any alteration in the 

 make of these well known tires. The firm of Cottereau, o{ 

 Dijon, France, was represented by their agents, Messrs. Mc- 

 Neill, Hutchinson & Barthwick, of Manchester, and the advan- 

 tages claimed for the S£e non-slipping tread were set forth. 

 This is a band of leather studded with metal, and covers the 

 rubber tread entirely. 



The reference to this subject in Franz Clouth's book on rub- 

 ber is of interest and suggests a few comments. I don't know 

 whether there are any regulations on the 



safety appliances subject in America, but in France, Ger- 



FOR MIXING ROLLS. ' , . . . 



many, and Austria it is compulsory in 

 rubber works to have safety mechanism attached to washers, 

 mixing rolls, and calenders. In England no such law prevails 

 and but little has been done in this way. Dr. Weber in the 

 appendix to his book refers to the ordinary clutch and striking 

 gear as being very inefficient in cases of emergency, and thinks 

 that it ought to be superseded by some of the improved types 

 on the market. It may not be generally known, but Messrs. 

 Crossley Brothers, of gas engine fame, were at one period of 

 their career makers of rubber machinery, and I understand 

 that the subject of safety mechanism had their attention. Our 

 rubber machinists have been by no means backward in the 

 matter ; indeed, to fill their foreign orders they have had to pay 

 particular attention to it, with results that must be considered 

 eminently satisfactory. For instance, Messrs. Iddon, of Ley- 

 land, and David Bridge & Co., of Castleton, are always prepared 

 to fit such mechanism to machines of their manufacture where 

 it is specified for, though the details of their methods are by 

 no means identical. In some of our English rubber works the 

 men engaged at the washing rolls use a wooden pole* in order 

 to minimize any risk of accident, and really in these days of 



workmen's compensation, it certainly seems advisable for mas- 

 ters to see that any unnecessary risk is eliminated. It cannot 

 be said that serious accidents are at all numerous, but still 

 there area sufficient number on record to make it evident that 

 the continental regulations are not representative merely of 

 arbitrary and unnecessary interference. I do not know what 

 the feeling of our manufacturers is with regard to state inter- 

 ference in this matter, but the general opinion as regards the 

 various restrictions under the Factory acts is that the trade is 

 sufficiently hampered. The rubber machinists think that safety 

 appliances should be universally used, but then they are hardly 

 to be considered in the light of disinterested parties. 



The appeal case of the Dunlop Rubber Co. v. David Moseley 

 & Sons has attracted considerable attention, and not only be- 

 cause of the particular interests involved but also 

 THE because the judgment in the defendants favor gives 



LAW J a » 



courts, effect to a point of law which does not appear to have 

 hitherto been thrashed out. The facts have been al- 

 ready referred to in the case of the trial before Mr. Justice 

 Swinfen Eady, but may be briefly recapitulated. Messrs. Mose- 

 ley manufactured the outer covers of pneumatic tires and sold 

 these to persons who got the inner tubes and rims elsewhere, 

 in order to turn out the complete article. The patent of the 

 Dunlop company is for the combination of parts, and not for 

 any part by itself, and judgment for the defendants was based 

 on the fact that they merely made and sold the outer covers 

 which they were entitled to do. Judging by the questions put 

 to their counsel by the judges, the Dunlop case was much 

 weakened by their not proceeding against any actual person 

 who made up the complete tires proving definite collusion with 

 Moseley's and marking them parties to the action. It was said 

 by the plaintiffs that this was impossible, but the judges were 

 evidently not of this opinion. It was not sufficient they said 

 to show that instructions were issued in a catalogue showing 

 how infringement could be perpetrated it was necessary to 

 prove the act of infringement. The failure to do this proved 

 the main stumbling block to the plaintiff's claim, though of 

 course it is an open question whether an amended claim 

 would have met with greater success.==The appeal case 

 of the Dunlop company against The North British Rubber Co. 

 also went against the plaintiffs, the arrangement come to be- 

 tween the defendants and Michelin & Co. of Clermont-Ferrand 

 with regard to the manufacture and sale of Clincher-Michelin 

 motor tires being upheld as within the rights of the defendants 

 under their Dunlop license. With regard to the successful ac- 

 tion brought by the Dunlop Co. against the Hyde Rubber Co., 

 it should be noted that the defendants are a distinct firm from 

 the Hyde Rubber Works, Limited, the successors of the Hyde 

 Imperial Rubber Co. 



SUBSTITUTE FOR INDIA-RUBBER. 



• The practice of using wooden p.les in connection with any type of roll washer 

 is far from being a wise one, at the wood is apt to splinter, and these splinters once 

 bedded in the rubber are very hard to extrac . As our correspondent indicates, 

 however, the practice is not a general one.— Thb Editor. 



DANIEL H. DUPONT-FRANKLIN (United States patent 

 746.689), produces a substance which he describes as re- 

 sembling India-rubber, by mixing together coal tar and boracic 

 acid dissolved in alcohol, boiling said mixture, and supplying 

 oxygen thereto. As a specific example, he mentions the com- 

 bination of 100 parts coal tar and 25 parts acid, boiling for a 

 proper length of time, and introducing the same into a vessel 

 heated to about 6o° C, into which oxygen is introduced. To 

 determine when the mixture has been boiled sufficiently, the 

 vapors which arise during boiling are ignited, and the boiling 

 is permitted to continue until a green flame appears. Instead 

 of coal tar, tar of petroleum or other hydrocarbons may be 

 used, and the boracic acid may be replaced by other acids. 



