420 
TRIAL — WOODIN V. FIELD. 
SUBSCRIPTIONS RECEIVED. 
£ 
s. 
d. 
£ 
s. 
d. 
Braby, Edw. . 
. 1 
0 
0 
Mayer, T., Sen. 
1 
1 
0 
Baker, Geo. 
. 1 
0 
0 
Mayer, T. W. 
1 
1 
0 
Dunsford, Jno. 
. 1 
0 
0 
Moss, F. W. . 
1 
1 
0 
Ernes, Wm. 
. 1 
0 
0 
Nice, J. ... 
1 
1 
0 
Field, Wm. . 
. 1 
0 
0 
Percivall, Wm. 
1 
1 
0 
Gabriel, E. N. 
. 1 
1 
0 
Robinson, W. 
1 
1 
0 
Henderson, Alex. . 
. 1 
0 
0 
Rogers, Alfred 
1 
0 
0 
Henderson, A. B. . 
. 1 
0 
0 
Sewell, Joseph 
1 
1 
0 
King, F., Sen. 
. 1 
1 
0 
Turner, Thos., President . 
1 
1 
0 
King, F., Jun. 
. 1 
1 
0 
Turner, Edw. 
1 
0 
0 
Mitchell, B. . 
. 1 
0 
0 
Turner, Jas. . 
1 
0 
0 
Mayhew, E. . 
. 1 
1 
0 
Withers, S. H. 
0 
10 
0 
Vice Chancellor’s Court. 
[Before Sir L. Shadwell.] 
Woodin v. Field. 
Mr. Bethell, with Mr. Beavan, moved to dissolve a special in- 
junction which had been obtained ex parte on the 27th of April, 
1846, restraining the defendant, who is a veterinary surgeon, from 
manufacturing and selling certain horseshoes, alleged to be an 
infraction of the plaintiff’s letters patent. The peculiarity of the 
invention was alleged to consist in adding a rim to the upper sur- 
face of the shoe, the effect of which was to protect the nails from 
friction, while, at the same time, it rendered the footing of the 
animal more sure upon a slippery surface. The learned counsel 
submitted that there was nothing new in the invention. So long 
ago as the year 1609 there was published at London, imprinted 
for the Stationers, a treatise by Blundeville, entitled the “ Four 
chiefest Offices belonging to Horsemanship,” in which the horse- 
shoe in question was plainly described. Mr. J. Parker, with Mr. 
Birkbeck and Mr. Webster, were heard contra. The Vice Chan- 
cellor said, that, when this case came' before him on the 27th of 
April, he had a strong foreboding that the plaintiff’s case was such 
that it would not long be suffered to remain undisturbed. He 
thought there was so little of invention about it, that there would 
soon be a discussion on the validity of the patent ; and so the event 
proved. He thought there was nothing in principle which differed 
from the description in Blundeville. He described the horseshoe 
as being protected by a welt, which was as high as the nails, and 
saved them from wearing. There might be a difference in the 
adaptation, but there was none in principle, for the thing was de- 
scribed almost in terms in Blundeville. It was a simple imitation 
of the cloven foot of the animal ; but there was no patent taken 
out for the adaptation. In his opinion, therefore, the injunction 
must be dissolved with costs, including the costs of the affidavits 
which had not been read. 
