On the comparative Strength of Chain Cables. 461 



1816, that not only the triangular chani but the parallel chaia 

 should be tried against them." 



*' Brmiton's was the angular?" — "Yes." 



"And Capt. Brown desired some experiments to be made be- 

 tween the elliptical and angular chains?" — "Yes." 



" Did he (Brunton) admit that the plan of Brown's was strong- 

 est?" — "No; he admitted that it was as strong, and it would 

 be only trying the excellency of the workmanship and the iron 

 against workmanship and iron." 



" Mr. Brunton admitted that the elliptical was as strong as the 

 angular form, supposing they were made the same way, and not 

 that the elliptical link with the pointed stay was as strong?"— 

 *'No; that was not spoken of. Capt. Brown wished to have 

 manufactured chains for the purpose of trial, with links that had 

 their sides nearly as a straight line, considering that the more it 

 deviated it became the weaker. Brown wished it to be done ; 

 but the Navy Board thought it unnecessary to enter into it, as 

 it was admitted to be as strong." 



The plaintiff next called Mr. Bramah; but the Judge here 

 intimated, that already the evidence for the plaintiff appeared so 

 plain, that he should like to learn from defendants' counsel what 

 answer they could give to so strong a case, vvithout'now taking 

 up the time of the court in examining more witnesses for plain- 

 tiff, till it should be seen, from the nature of the defence, whether 

 it would be necessary ? — iii which event, he would not preclude 

 defendant from calling more witnesses. 



The counsel for plaintiff said, they had many scientific men yet 

 to be examined, if necessary*; but had no objection to what had 

 been recommended by his lordship. 



Defendants' counsel contended, that neither the chain-cable 

 nor the anchor were new. Chains having oval links, very simi- 

 lar in form to those described by the patentee, had been in use 

 for ages, therefore he could liave no exclusive right to the use of 

 such chains ; and Capt. Brown had used stays, therefore he could 

 have no exclusive right to them. It was also stated, that evidence 

 would be offered to prove that links having their substance in 

 the same plane, and having what might be called broad-ended 

 stays (though not so broad, nor precisely of tlie form of plaintiff's 

 «tay), had been in use long before the date of the patent. 



• We have seldom or never seen in any cause such ii phahinx of scien- 

 tific and practical men as were subpoenaed for the phiintiff. Besides those 

 already mentioned, we observed among thetn. Processor Millington, of the 

 Koyal Institution, Messrs. Mawdealay, Wilson Lowry, Ostell, Galloway, 

 Tilloch, Keir, Collingc, John Farey jun., Hawkins, (iill, .Joseph Farcy, 

 T. .Jones (instrument-maker te the lioard of I^ongitude), and others ; bcsidei 

 Master ship-builders. Sea Captains, and people vcrsant with naval matters, 

 but whose namet) we could not learn. 



Mr. 



