INGENUITY AND LUXURY 



publicly to acknowledge his defective schooling, as 

 most men in his position naturally would, he may have 

 concocted the excuse he gave, rather than admit the 

 true explanation. 



But while he had lost the first hearing in the case, 

 he was fortunately as well equipped as his enemies for 

 continuing the fight. And four years later, on Feb- 

 ruary 17, 1785, the former decision was reversed by 

 the Court of Common Pleas. 



This decision was not final, and the case was again 

 returned to the Court of King's Bench the same court 

 that had decided against him before and the case 

 came up for hearing in June of 1785. This time the 

 manufacturers sprung a surprise upon the defendant. 

 Two witnesses, a man named Highs, or Hayes, and 

 another named Kay, were brought forward, one of 

 whom swore that he had invented the roller spinning- 

 machine seventeen years before, and the other that he 

 had been employed to make this alleged machine in 

 that year. As the defense was not prepared for this, 

 they asked for time to prepare rebutting evidence; 

 but the court refused this, declaring as it had before, 

 that the specifications were too "obscure and indefi- 

 nite" to warrant the issuance of a patent. 



But the technical decisions of courts cannot change 

 popular opinions and convictions. Hayes and Kay 

 were soon forgotten, and most unprejudiced contem- 

 poraries admitted what all posterity believes, that 

 Arkwright was entitled to full credit for the elaboration 

 and introduction of the machine that has conferred 

 such untold benefits upon mankind. The year fol- 



[30] 



