42S 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[December, 



Todd, Railway Foiindn-, of this town. The Hull and Selby line was opened 

 %\ith the engines of the former order, but the public and the company being 

 so much annoyed by hot cinders from their chimneys, burning wliatever they 

 lighted upon, and rapidly destroying the smoke boxes themselves, three of 

 those engines were altered, and succeeded to a considerable extent in diminish- 

 ing the nuisance, whilst the engines performed better, and with less fuel. 

 That fact, however, being (piestioued, and two engines of the improved con- 

 struction having got to work, Mr. John Cray, the engineer of the locomotive 

 department, and patentee of the improved engines, urgently requested a most 

 rigorous and simultaneous trial of the different engines, and to be witnessed 

 for the parties concerned by persons above suspicion. Mr. J. Miller and Mr. 

 T. Lindsley represented Messrs. Fenton, Murray, and Jackson ; Mr. J. Craven 

 and Mr. J. Barrons represented Messrs. Shepherd and Todd ; and Messrs. E. 

 Fletcher, ^Y. B. Bray, J. G. Lynde, jun., J. Farnell, and J. Gray, were the re- 

 preaentatives of the Hull and Selby Railway Company. The arrangements 

 for the experiments were, that the gross load should include engine, tender, 

 carriages, and every thing in the train. 



The steam was got up in the respective engines to the pressure of from 56 

 to 66 lb. per square inch ; the tires tilled to a certain level at the starting in 

 the morning, and filled to the same level on finishing the last trip at night. 

 The pressure of steam at starting was generally up to 66 lb. and was at about 

 half that pressure at the end of each trip. There v^eref/ty experimental 

 trips made in all, namely, twenty-four trips with the CoHinywood, Andreic 

 Marvel, and Tfellinyton, the unaltered engines of Messrs. Fenton, Murray, 

 and Jackson. Their average gross load was 53'4 tons, or 1656 tons, over one 

 mile: consumption of coke 10131b. or 0-611 lb. per ton per mile; water, 

 6500 lb. or 3'90 lb. per ton per mile. There were ten trips made with the 

 other three engines of Messrs. Fenton, Murray, and Jackson, which were 

 altered at Hull, namely, the Exley, Kinyston, and Selhy. Their average load 

 was 49'16 tons, or 1 524 tons over one mile ; consumption of coke, 635 lb. or 

 0-416 lb. per ton per mile: water, 42641b. or 2-79 lb. per ton per mile. 



the patent, engines made by Messrs. Shepherd and Todd, viz. the Star and 

 Testa, made sLxteeu trips, and their average loads, &c., were 55-4 tons, or 

 1718 tons over one mile; coke consumed, 465 lb. or 0-271 lb. per ton per 

 mile; water, 2874 lb. or 1-62 lb. per ton per mile. The average gross load 

 of aU the fifty trips is 53-2 tons, or 1649-4 tons over one mile, and taking 

 that as a standard load, the consumption of fuel and water performing exactly 

 equal quantities of work, is represented in the following tables : — 



The financial annual resiJt of the three classes of engines for coke and 

 boilers, with such a traffic as that of the Hull and Selby hne, will be about — 



£4,500 for the unaltered engines. 



£3,250 for the altered ditto; and about 



£2,000 for the patent engines. 



In conclusion, it is deserving of remark, that all the attesting witnesses 

 expressed themselves highly satisfied mth the manner in which the experi- 

 ments had been conducted, and with the facilities which the Company so 

 readily granted to enable them to come at correct results. Probably no ex- 

 periments were ever made under similar circumstances where the parties con- 

 cerned displayed greater independence, impartiality, and good feeUng than on 

 the present occasion. — Leeds Mermry. 



PATENT LAW. 



An Important Case of Patent Law reyardiny the Ammdment of Specification 

 was heard in the Rolls' Court, on Friday, Nov. 6. 



IN THE MATTER OF JOHN SHARP's LETTERS PATENT. 



The petition of Joshua Wordsworth, of Leeds, machine-maker, for expung- 

 ing from the memorandum of alterations in the specification of Sharp's letters 

 patent " for machinery for converting ropes into tow, &c.," such portions as 

 were in substance descriptive of the same machinery as was invented by the 

 petitioner Wordsworth, was resumed, and Mr. Bacon for Mr. Sharp followed 

 Mr. Hill against the petition, and Mr. Pemberton, in behalf of Wordsworth, 

 the petitioner, replied. 



By statute 5 and 6 Wilham IV., c. 73, " to amend the law touching letters 

 patent for inventions," it is enacted " that any person having obtained letters 

 patent for an invention may enter with the clerk of the patents (having first 

 obtained the leave of the Attorney or SoUcitor-Gencral) a disclaimer of any 

 part of his specification, or a memorandum of any alteration therein wliich is 



to he deemed part of such specification." Wordsworth's petition stated that 

 letters patent were granted in October, 1836, to Sharp to make and vend his 

 invention, part of which the petitioner stated was applicable to the preparing 

 cotton wool and silk for spinning. The specification was enrolled in April, 

 1837. In May, 1838, letters patent were granted to the petitioner M'ords- 

 worth for an invention of improvements in machinery " for heckling and 

 dressing flax, hemp, and other fibrous materials," and in November following 

 the specification was enrolle<l. The petition then stated, that after this en- 

 rolment he (Wordsworth) discovered that Sharp had, in September, 1838, 

 obtained from the SoUcitor-General a certificate that Sharp had applied for 

 leave to enter with the Clerk of the Patents certain memorandums of altera- 

 tions of parts of his specification, and that the SoUcitor-General had directed 

 him to advertise the alterations, which was done ; and, no objection having 

 been made, the Solicitor-General granted leave to Sharp to file the memoran- 

 dum of alterations, which alterations the petitioner stated were a new ar- 

 rangement of machinery, and extended Sharp's patent to what were in sub- 

 stance his (Wordsworth's) inventions, as described in his specification. The 

 petitioner submitted that the statute did not authorize the addition to a spe- 

 cification of any description of new machinery, and prayed for expunging the 

 memorandum of alterations. 



For the petition it was argued by Mr. Pemberton and Mr. James Russell, 

 that the Master of the Rolls (in whose custody the rolls of the Court in Chan- 

 cery were) had authority to permit alterations to be made in the rolls, and 

 his jurisdiction for that purpose remained unimpeached by the act of WilUani 

 TV. The jurisdiction originally inherent in tliis court had been acted upon 

 under the Municipal Corporation jVct in question respecting the authority 

 given to the Lords of the Treasury of interfering with the rolls of the court 

 in the cases of " The Attorney-General against the Corporation of Liverpool," 

 and against the Mayor of Poole, where it had been laid down by the Lord 

 Chancellor, that to exclude the jurisdiction of one court there must be not 

 only another tribunal created, hut an absolute exclusion of all other authori- 

 ties enacted. In a case of charitable trusts, which were to be exercised in 

 such manner as the Lord Chancellor should direct, there was an appeal from 

 the direction to the House of Lords, in which the question whether that house 

 had jurisdiction was not decided, but the opinion expressed was that they had 

 not. In "the Attorney-General against Norsvich," the judges were unani- 

 mous against the jurisdiction of the bouse. To exclude the jurisdiction of 

 this court there must be an express legislative exclusion ; and the mere giring 

 an authority to another tribunal would not have that effect. Where a cleri- 

 cal mistake was established that might be corrected. Every coiu-t had an 

 entire control over its own records, as the Court of Common Pleas had over 

 fines and recoveries ; whether the error were clerical or otherwise, it made 

 no difference, for the record was not in the state it ought to be. The roUs 

 of tliis court were under the control of the Master of the Rolls, and the state 

 in which the records ought to be was subject to his determination, which 

 must control the opinion of the SoUcitor-General. The memorandums of 

 alterations were filed with the specification and became part of it. Had there 

 been an alteration by erasure and substitution of other words, a difficulty 

 would have been created ; but there was no difficulty here in ordering the 

 memorandum to be taken oft' the rolls. The act had not given the Solicitor- 

 General power to decide conclusively and without appeal what should or 

 should not be on the rolls, nor had it excluded the jurisdiction of the judges 

 of the court over its rolls. Suppose joer incuriam or by mistake in his clerk 

 a fiat for an inconsiderate alteration had been given, or suppose the fiat had 

 been attached to a wrong memorandum, the SoUcitor-General would have no 

 authority after he had given his fiat to correct any mistake or fraud, nor would 

 there be any means of making such correction if the jurisdiction of this Court 

 were taken away. The effect of the fiat was merely that certain things should 

 be placed upon the record, subject in all respects to the same concUtions as 

 the other records were. If the memorandum were not warranted, the Court 

 could take it oflf. Had the statute made the fiat absolute, that could not have 

 been done, but the fiat left the jiu-isdiction precisely in the same state it was 

 in before, and it was for his Lordship to determine whether the memorandum 

 of alterations ought or ought not to remain a record of the Court, and if not, 

 his Lordship had jurisdiction to order it to be removed. He did not contend 

 that his Lordship could order a patent to be taken off the roUs of the coiui; 

 on the ground that the invention was not new, but whether his Lordship was 

 to decide whether such circumstances had existed as could justify the memo- 

 randum being put upon the rolls. The question was not to be determined 

 by the law officers of the Crown without the control of any other authority. 

 The act had not declared their fiat conclusive, nor had it extended any right 

 given by the letters patent. The Legislatm-e prevented the record being al- 

 tered at the mere will of the parties, enacting that there must be the leave of 

 the Attorney or Solicitor-General. Their fiat was not to extend the exclusive 

 right granted by the letters patent, but this fiat extended those rights; there- 

 fore the memorandum of alteration was not such as the act allowed, and if 

 so, the fiat was good for nothing. It might be said, that if the memorandum 

 is not warranted by the act, the objection might be taken in an action at law ; 

 but the answer to that would be, that the alteration is incorporated into the 

 letters patent, and alters the specification ; and although the petitioner in au 

 action at law might say the invention as specified in the alteration was neither 

 new nor useful, he could not say it was no part of the specification, and he 

 might have a right to have his action tried upon the original specification. If 

 the fiat were conclusive, the alterations could not be averred to be no part of 

 the record, for the statute had made them part of the record so long as the 



