158 APPENDIX. 



rods are pin-jointed, the revolving collar being driven by a different instrument from the 

 driving-rod, g, in Morgan's wheel, which is not so uniform in its action. 



We feel called upon here to correct a statement in Mr. P. W. Barlow's paper " On the motion 

 of Steam Vessels," page 42 of this Appendix, relating to the case of Morgan and another, 

 versus Seaward and others. Mr. Barlow states that " The Vice-Chancellor having given 

 " judgment against granting an injunction, the parties tried an action at law, in which they 

 " were also unsuccessful ; and Messrs. Seaward have now the privilege of making these 

 " wheels." Now, the state of the case is this. It is necessary before an injunction can be 

 granted that the validity of the patent should be established by an action at law. To this, 

 therefore, the plaintiffs had recourse, in full confidence of success, and they obtained a verdict 

 on the following heads : 



1. That defendants' wheels were only a colourable evasion of plaintiffs' patent, and the 



former were therefore guilty of infringement ; 



2. That the specification was sufficient ; 



3. That the invention was novel and useful ; 



4. That the wheel was an improvement, but that the engine, which was coupled with it in 



the same patent, although new, was useless. 



The jury, however, under the judge's direction, found for defendants on the ground of 

 previous sale ; but it was afterwards decided by the judges in Banco that the alleged sale was 

 no sale at all ; nevertheless, as the jury had found that the engine was useless, the judgment 

 must be for defendants, because plaintiffs had coupled in one patent two distinct things, and 

 had therefore committed a fraud on the Crown, 1 thus imposing on them the necessity of pro- 

 nouncing the patent inoperative. They added, however, that " they had the satisfaction of 

 " knowing that this decision would not destroy the patent, as it might be rendered valid by 

 " disclaiming the engine before the Attorney-General." We understand that steps are about 

 being taken to effect this object. 



Figs. 2 and 4, PI. LXXVIII., show the path of one of the floats of the wheel represented by 

 Fig. 1, with the same relative velocities as those relating to the common wheel in PI. LXXIV. 

 Figs. 3 and 5 are the nodes enlarged. It will be seen at once that both the upper and lower 

 edges of the float are nearly tangent to their respective cycloids at the time of entering the 

 water, so that there can be no perceptible resistance at that time, and consequently no shock ; 

 at its emersion the float is also nearly tangent to its course, so that there is no back water : 

 the float only raises as much water as adheres to its surface. We have observed, when on 

 board a vessel with Morgan's wheels, which did not act exactly as they ought to have done 

 on account of the draught of water being greater than was intended, that each float, as it left 

 the water, could be easily distinguished through the spray, which must therefore have been 

 very inconsiderable, and that the surface of the water behind the wheels was perfectly level. 

 Whoever has seen the common wheels in action cannot fail to have observed the hillocks or 

 waves formed by the back water, which make it sometimes dangerous for little boats to be 

 brought up along side without stopping the engines, and show at the same time that a 



1 Query ? Are there no other patents in which two distinct things are included ? If there are, have the patentees com- 

 mitted a fraud on the Crown ? and if so, why are patents granted in such cases ? 



