442 
BETTS V. DE YITRE AND OTHERS. 
the validity of the patent on the ground @f anticipation by prior user of the invention 
under a patent taken out by one Dobbs in 1804 ; and also that, even assuming the vali¬ 
dity of the patent and the infringement of it by the capsules used by them, the mere 
transshipment of the cargo at Liverpool or London from the Glasgow vessel to that sail¬ 
ing for the foreign port to which the cargo was consigned, was not such a user of the 
invention in this country as to constitute an infringement within the jurisdiction of 
which this Court could take cognizance. It was held by Vice-Chancellor Wood that the 
defendants had failed to establish such a user of the invention patented by Dobbs as 
would invalidate the plaintiff’s patent by anticipation ; and that, having regard to the 
nature of Mr. Betts’s invention, there had been such a user of it in this country as to 
justify the interference of the Court. The defendants appealed. 
Mr. G. M. Giffard, Q.C., Mr. Wickens, and Mr. Aston were for the appellants; Mr. 
Willcock, Q.C., Mr. Grove, Q.C., and Mr. Everitt for the plaintiff. 
The Lord Chancellor said that the two principal questions were whether the patent 
of Mr. Betts was a valid one, and whether the defendants had been guilty of an in¬ 
fringement of it. The patent had been for many years the subject of litigation, par¬ 
ticularly in the case of “ Betts v. Menzies,” and, from the conflicting nature of the 
evidence, it had become a task of no little difficulty to discover the truth. After a full 
consideration of the scientific and other evidence, however, he was of opinion that the 
invention patented by Dobbs was not such a publication of the specification of the 
plaintiff as to invalidate the patent of the latter, and that there had been no prior user 
of the plaintiff’s invention. The question then arose, whether the defendants had been 
guilty of infringement. The firm of which the defendant Neilson was manager sold 
beer for exportation only, and it was insisted on their part that as the sale of the beer 
took place in Scotland, there was no active use of the capsules in England which could 
constitute an infringement. It did not appear to the Court necessary to consider whether 
Messrs. Tennant were in possession of the capsuled beer at the time it was in England. 
The infringement of a patent was a tort, and all persons acting towards it were answer- 
able. The capsules were not used merely for ornament, but for the purpose of excluding 
air and dampness. The employment of an article for the purpose for which it was de¬ 
signed constituted its active use ; and the whole time these capsules were in England 
they might be said to be in active use for the very object for which they were placed on 
the bottles by the vendors. It could not be said that there was no user because England 
was not the final destination of the articles. There had been an active use of the cap¬ 
sules by those who first placed them on the bottles and by those who had them in their 
possession afterwards, and therefore he (the Lord Chancellor) agreed with the Court 
below that the defendants had been guilty of an infringement of the patent. With 
regard to there being a decree for an inquiry as to damages as well as for an account, 
since the passing of Lord Cairns’ Act there was nothing to prevent the Court awarding 
damages, as well as an account, where full relief could not otherwise be obtained. In 
the present case he agreed with the Vice-Chancellor that the plaintiff was entitled to 
both these means of relief. The decree of the Court below must be affirmed, and the 
appeal dismissed with costs. 
BETTS v. DE VITRE AND OTHERS. 
This case also involved the question of the validity of Mr. Betts’s patent, the defen¬ 
dants being the Wimshurst Patent Metal Foil and Sheet Metal Company. The Court 
below held that there had been an infringement of the patent, and granted an injunction 
to restrain the defendants from manufacturing any material similar to or only colcurably 
differing from the combination of lead and tin invented by Mr. Betts. 
Sir R. Palmer, Q.C., Mr. Haddan, Q.C., and Mr. Kekewich were for the appellants; 
Mr. Willcock, Q.C., Mr. Grove, Q.C., and Mr. Everitt for Mr. Betts. 
The Lord Chancellor said that in this case the questions involved were precisely the 
same as those in the case of “ Betts v. Neilson,” while the evidence in both was so similar 
in character that he might refer to the judgment he had just delivered for his decision 
in the present suit. With regard to the question of the personal liability of the directors 
of the Wimshurst Patent Metal Foil and Sheet Metal Company, it had always been held 
that a master was responsible for all the acts of his servant which were done in the 
execution of his duty. The alleged infringement took place in the company’s works. 
