•234 



THE CtVIL ENGINJ]ER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[June, 



mixture of grit and sand, and from cementing such blocks, or from selling or 

 putting in practice the plaintilV's invention. The plaintiff was the patentee 

 of the well-known invention cmpliiyed in paving some parts of the metropo- 

 lis, which he described in his specification to consist of a natural compound 

 extracicd in masses from mines at Pyrmont, near Scyssel, in the department 

 of I'Ain, and other parts in the Jura Mountains, which contained, in addition 

 to a small portiojiof a(|ueous matter, about 90 parts of carbonate of lime, 

 and lU of bitumen, and winch was reduced by means of heat to a mastic 

 cement or composition, and united with bitumen or mineral, or other pitch. 

 This, combined with sand or gravel, formed a substance applicable to paving 

 and road making, and was an invention the plaintift' claimed under his patent 

 granted in November, 1837. Tlie defendant had oblaiucd a similar natural 

 compound or asphalte from Val de Travers, and had produced a mastic 

 composition resembling the plaintiff's, using only tar instead of pitch, which 

 he also applied to the purposes of making roads and pavement. A portion 

 of it had been laid down with the other experimental pavement in Oxford- 

 street, but, as it was merely intended for experiment, had been compounded 

 with pilch, and not with tar. It was now contended the defendant's 

 invention was no infringement of the plaintiff's patent, tar being a substance 

 that contained many component ])arts, of which the pilch or bitumen used by 

 the plaintiff was only the residuum. It was alio shown from several scientific 

 and philosophical dictionaries that asphaltum had been used in various parts 

 of the globe for making walls and pavements many years before the jilaintiff 

 obtained hisp.itcnt, and that therefore the invention iiad nota sufficient claim 

 to novelty to support it. The defendant also alleged that before the bill was 

 filed Mr. Claridge bad assigned his patent to a company who were not made 

 parties to the suit. On these grounds it was contended the injunction ought 

 to be dissolved. 



Mr. K. Bruce, Mr. Jacob, and Mr. Ellis supported the injunction. The 

 only question was whether the tar admitted by the defendant to have been 

 used by him in forming tlie composition was not in effect precisely the same as 

 the bitumen which constituted the only disputed ingredient of the patent. 

 Whether the asphalte came from Seyssel or from Val de Travers its properties 

 were the same, and both were embraced by the specifications : so that it only 

 remained to be shown from an affidavit the defendants had not thought proper 

 to read, and which had received no answer, that the tar in fact became in the 

 process ofheating converted into pitch, and ihat every portion of the defendant's 

 composition was identical with that included in the plaintiff's patent. The 

 learned counsel then read the affidavit of Mr. Woolrich, a professor of 

 chemistry at Birmingham, which stated that tar consisted of volatile 

 and aqueous matter and pitch, and that in order to combine tar with asphalte 

 to make a mastic cemenl, heat must necessarily be used, which caused an 

 evaporation of the volatile properties, and that the only portion of the tar 

 which entered into the combination was asphalte and the pitch which the tar 

 contained. 



The Vice-chancellor said it was the simplest case in the world. It came 

 to no more than this, that the plaintiff took out a patent for a combination 

 by heat of asphalte with bitumen or mineral, or other pitch, so as to produce 

 a composition applicable to the pnrposeof paving and so on ; and then it was 

 said the defendant had not infringed the patent because he had used a 

 combination, by means of heal, of asphalte iviih tar. The defendant admitted 

 that a portion of the pavement laid down in Oxford-street was made with 

 asphalte and pilch, but that occurred before the discussion arose. Then the 

 question was, whether it was an infringement of Ihe patent to substitute tar 

 for pitch. If the effect of combining asphalte wilh tar by means of heat was 

 to leave the tar in a slate of combination in respect to itself, in its own original 

 state, and possessed of all its qualities, so that the composition should contain 

 asphalte as such, and lar as such, ihere might have been no iiifringement of 

 the patent; but if the necessary process of attempting to combine them by 

 means of heat was, that those circumstances and things which constituted the 

 distinction between tar and pilch were taken away, and the residue of the 

 tar only formed a combination of asphalte and pitch, ho thought, for the 

 purpose of considering whetlier IlKrehad been an infringement of the patent, 

 tar and pitch must be considered the same. So that he was of opinion, upon 

 the evidence before him, the defendant ought not to be at liberty to go on thus 

 violating the patent, and the injunction must be continued, the plaintiff 

 bringing forthwith such action as he should he advised to try the validity 

 of the patent, and whether what the defendant had done amounted to 

 an infringement. 



EASTERN COUNTIES EAILW.VV. 



The Qttccii V. Ihe TUn'ctors rif the Eask-rt} Cmtnties llttlliva'j Comjmuij. — In the 

 Court of Queen's Bench, May ti, 1839, before Mr. Juslice M'illiams. — The Allorney- 

 General said that he was instructed to make an application to the coru-t, the success 

 of which would, he hoped, produce the most salutary consequences to Ihe public in 

 respect of the company against which he applied, as «ell as all others of a similar 

 description. The object of the application was to compel the del'endunts to perform 

 the whole of the contract which they had entered into with the public, anil to jne. 

 vent them from picking out some particular parts of it, and executing only those 

 parts, as being the oidy parts likely to be beneficial to themselves. It appeared that 

 the company had been established in 1838, by the tidi and 7lh Wilham IV., chap. 

 IOC, and that the act of rarliament was for laying down a railway from London to 

 Norwich and 'i'armoulh. through C'cilchcster, Ipswich, and sever.ilother inlerniediale 

 towns. Tlie undertaking, upon the sup]iosilinn that it would ho cariied on througli- 

 ont the w hole of the line described in the act, had met « ilh great encouragement and 

 support from the landowners of Norfolk and Sufl'olk, and upon Ihe same ground the 

 landowners of Essex made no objection to its p;issing through their properties. It 

 now appeared, however, that tlie directors wanted only to make the road from Loudou 



to Colchester, and no further. If an apjdication for that part of the original lino had 

 been mode to rarliament in the first instance, it never could have succeeded. But 

 the company having proposed to make a road from London to Yaruiouth, now 

 intended to slop at Colchester, which, as the learned counsel contended, was a mani- 

 fest breach of faith wilh the landowners of Norfolk and Suffolk, and with the general 

 body of the shareholders. The manner in which the company proposed to elleet 

 their object was by placing themselves in such a situation that Uiey could not by \i\\\ 

 continue the line beyond Colchester. It appeared that some deviations from the 

 original line between that point and the more northern parts were pro\ ided for by 

 another act procured by the company, the 1st and 2ud Victoria, c. SI, in the *2ud sec- 

 lion of which act it was ilirecled, thai unless such deviations should be laid out 

 bel'oie the i/th of July, 1831), it should not be lawful for the company to proceed 

 with lliat part of the line at all. The company therefore, by merely ounlling to lay 

 out the line of the deviation, would place themselves in the position «hicli they 

 desired, and would have no ],ower in law to proceed beyond Colchester. They had 

 been called upon several limes by parties interested in the undertaking to mark out 

 the deviation, but bad refused to do so, for reasons which were sutfieienlly obvious 

 from the statemeuls wdiich he (the Attorney-General) had addressed to the court. The 

 learned gentleman then referred to the ease of " The King against the Severn antl 

 \\'ye Kaih^ay Companj-,'' 2 B. and A., in which the defendants were counnanded by 

 this court to make a road for the public aciomnindatinn. A iiuh\ ay "ivas not a pri- 

 vate way, but a common highway, and any tUbir prison as well as the enmpany may 

 travel upon it with his o^^'u engines, upon ol'ser\iiig the necessary regulations. In 

 the case referred to, it had been admitted by die court that the defendants Avere liable 

 to an indictment i'or not laying down the railroad ; but, as such a proceeding, how- 

 ever it may afford the means of punishing the defendants, could not procure any 

 aeeommodation to the public, the court granted a mamlamiis commanding the com- 

 pany to do what was desired. The circumstances of the present case were exactly 

 the same. The comjiany had, by their act of Parliament, entered into a contract 

 with the public, who could not have the advantage which the legi.slalure intended 

 they should derive from the propo.sed undertaking, unless it were completed allo- 

 gctiier. It was (piile clear that the company cuuld not legally stop at the end of 

 half a mile, as the road would, by that means, become a public niusance. They were, 

 therefore, bound to proceed, stage by stage, until they arrived at the termiuus 

 appoiuted by the act. The ailidavit was from a great number of landowners in tlie 

 neighbourhood of that part of the line which ran from Colchester to Yaruiouth, a 

 distance of about 70 miles. The other deponents were .sbai'eholders in the concern, 

 and all swore that they, as well as the public, would be very seriously prejudiced 

 unless die company should be compelled to complete their line according to the 

 original plan. In these circumstances, his application was for a ride calling upon 

 the defendants to show cause why a iiiarnfuHius shoidd not issue, commanding them 

 to proceed to point out the deviations referred to, so that the whole of that duty 

 might be performed before the 27th day of next July. 



Mr. Justice ^\'illiams inquired why, in a ease of so much novelty and importance, 

 the Attorney-General had not applied" to the full court'.' 



The .Attorney-General answered, that in the state of business in that court, he had 

 not been able to obtain an opportunity to make the applicadon there. 



Mr. .lustice ^^■illiams observ ed, that the case w as certainly one of great importance, 

 and granted the rule. 



HARBOURS ON THE SOUTH-EASTERN COAST. 



We arc glad to .see that Government are awakening to this important 

 subject, and that there is a prospect of sometliing being done. We 

 only hope that it is not a job. We give below an extract from the 

 debate on the 'Jnd ultimo, in the House of Commons : — 



HARllOUES ON THE SOUTII-EASTEKN COAST. 



May 2. 



Mr. E. Rice moved, pursuant to the notice he had given, for an address to 

 inquire into the state of the harbours on the south-eastern coast. The question 

 was one which had met the approbation of all the distinguished naval officers 

 in and out of that house with whom he had conversed. It was the more ne- 

 cessary that our south-eastern harbours should be placed in a fit and safe state 

 for the reception of vessels, as we were about to have a greatly increased 

 intercourse with the continent. A line of railroad from London to Dover had 

 received the sanction of the legislature, and was now in a state of considerable 

 forwardness ; and a line of railroad from Calais and Boulogne to Paris had" 

 received the sanction of the French Chambers. When these were completed, 

 it was natural to expect a vast increase of intercourse between London and 

 Paris, and other parts of the continent. Under these circumstances, the con- 

 dition of the south-eastern harbours was a matter of considerable importance. 

 He did not wish by his motion to pledge the Government to any outlay of 

 money ; all he wanted at present was, an examination of the condition of those 

 harbours by scientific men. He had brought forward this motion as the repre- 

 sentative of a port where the necessity of such improvement was greatly felt. 



Mr. S. Rice stated that he did not 'wish to throw any difficulty in Ihe way of 

 the honourable member's proposition. It was highly important that both 

 Government and Parliament should have the best information that skill and 

 science could give on this subject ; hut he wished it to be distinctly understood 

 to what extent he was willing to go, because, if undue expectations were ex- 

 cited respecting this inquiry, and if it were thought that Government would 

 expend large sums of money in obtaining information respecting these har- 

 bours, the result would be to paralyse all private and local efforts for effecting 

 the object in contemplation. In consenting, therefore, to this inquiry, he 

 wished it to be clearly understood that it was only so far that he would go, and 

 no further. The first was to consider the present state of the harbours, and 

 the next would be to consider the best mode of improving them ; the latter, 

 however, would depend upon local questions ; and the greatest good that could 

 be done was to give the persons locally connected with them the best informa- 

 tion that could be obtained. 



