34 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
[July 9, 1870. 
Eugene Rimmel by the house of Espinasse in Paris, either 
before or after I purchased the business, bore this in¬ 
scription, ‘ E. Rimmel, London and Paris, PerfumerI 
may have sworn they did on some former occasion, and 
if so, it is true.” 
“ I will not swear that each of the capsules on the 11 
Exhibits, and on those numbered 211 and 401, was not 
made by my house of Espinasse, or that they were not 
sold and delivered by that house to Eugene Rimmel.” 
Question. In clause 5 of the affidavit of Sandford and 
another, filed the 18th of January, 1869, in this suit, it 
is stated that you told them “ to the purport that you 
had been put to a great expense, £20,000, with regard to 
your patent, and must be reimbursed,” whether or not 
is that true F 
Answer. I have no recollection of having had any con¬ 
versation with Mr. Sandford in particular. I met, I be¬ 
lieve, a person of that name amongst others at the Phar¬ 
maceutical Society, when I do not believe the words 
£20,000 ever came out of my mouth. It would be more 
like at that time, with interest and compound interest, 
beyond £30,000 ; and I do not think I ever mentioned 
such a thing as £20,000. What transpired there I have 
given an account of in one of my affidavits. It is not 
true that I then stated, as is mentioned in the fifth para¬ 
graph of that affidavit, “ that I would sue every retailer 
in the country who had sold articles capsuled until I had 
got that sum of money.” I told him, and I told them 
all together as the pharmaceutical synod, that with their 
vast numbers, their names being legion, a pound a-piece 
from each would put me straight in the matter; and if 
the numbers were few, five pounds a-piece would make an 
atonement for all that had passed, namely, ten years’ in¬ 
fringement that had been going on. The reply was that 
they had no money, and, if that is what you mean, it will 
be war to the knife. I know the difference between the 
Pharmaceutical Society and the Defence Committee. One 
grew out of the other. I did not insist on a payment by 
the Pharmaceutical Society or its members further than 
as my bills were filed against any member of that so¬ 
ciety. 
Question. Did you not insist on a contract by the Phar¬ 
maceutical Society ? 
Answer. There were negotiations for peace after this 
interview, and there were plans suggested for an amic¬ 
able arrangement of the matters by the Pharmaceutical 
Society insisting on the foreign merchants who had in¬ 
fringed and were importing their goods into this country 
dealing with me thenceforward. Certain terms were 
proposed by me to the Pharmaceutical Society and the 
Defence Committee, but they were not accepted. 
Question. Did not the Pharmaceutical Society as a so¬ 
ciety always refuse to identify itself with this matter ? 
Answer. Certainly not. They advanced to me and 
pleaded guilty to the infringement of my patent from 
one end of England to the other. I believe that Mr. 
Rimmel, in my mind, appeared to be the cause of that 
meeting. 
Question. Are you certain that you did not name £25 
to any person as the amount to be paid by each ? 
Answer. I may have said that after they had paid £5 
as a penalty to me, the taxed costs of the bill which was 
filed against them would come to somewhere about £15 
or more, and I believe that was about the amount. I 
think those were the terms on which many were settled 
with. I thought I must fine them at least £5, so that 
they might tell the world that they had been so fined, 
and then it rested between them and my lawyer. I be¬ 
lieve I told the people at the Pharmaceutical Society 
that I could not declare my rights without going at once 
to that expense of a bill to assert my rights, and there¬ 
fore I said I could not assert them but at that cost to the 
one or other of us. I do not recollect whether I named 
the sum of £25 to be paid to me. I do not recollect 
whether I said that I had expended £36,000 in costs. I 
think I said over £30,000, but I did not in words say 
that I was resolved on being reimbursed. I said there 
must be something solid, something to eat. 
Other material passages appeared in the course of the 
proceedings. 
29tii June, 1870. 
At the sitting of the Court, the Vice-Chancellor said, 
—In this case, Mr. Kay, is there any evidence of the in¬ 
fringement except that of Mr. Betts himself ? 
Mr. Kay. —None, Sir, except the sort of corroborative 
evidence given in the same words by some of his ser¬ 
vants. Mr. Betts himself says in his first affidavit that 
he firmly believes the capsules are made in infringement 
of his patent. 
The Vice-Chancellor. —There is nothing about capsules 
in the patent. Where is the evidence that they were not 
made of metal bought of his Paris house ? 
Mr. Kay. —None. 
The Vice-Chancellor. —What is the evidence of the in¬ 
fringement ? What Mr. Betts verily believes is nothing. 
Mr. Kay. —And what he says as to it is quite consis¬ 
tent with the fact that they were obtained from himself. 
The Vice-Chancellor. —What evidence is there that 
these capsules are not made of lead pm-chased from Mr. 
Betts ? 
Mr. Willcock. —There is some evidence which my friend 
has not read. With reference to the actual houses at 
which it is suggested it may have been bought, -we can 
only give negative evidence as to that. If they had 
chosen to call Mr. Rimmel, we might have cross-ex¬ 
amined him. 
The Vice-Chancellor. —What evidence have you given ? 
Mr. Willcock. —Your Honour will find it at page 7 of 
the depositions:—“Will you pledge your oath whether 
those capsules were or not manufactured by your house 
of Espinasse ? A. I believe they are infringements, and 
that they are not of the house of Espinasse. 1 found 
this my belief on this, that Rimmel’s dies in Paris do not 
correspond, as I have been informed, with the stamping 
on those, but I will not swear that they do not corre¬ 
spond exactly. I do not know whether it is the fact 
that Dupre’s capsules supplied to Rimmel bore Dupre’s 
name upon them. The Exhibit now produced and marked 
W. B. 24, appears to bear a Dupre capsule. It is a tin 
capsule, and Dupre puts his name on the tin capsules, 
but not on those made of the patent metal. I do not 
know whether every die used by Dupre for Rimmel’s 
capsules contained in the inner circle the words ‘ Paris 
and London,’ or ‘ 39, Gerrard Street, London.’ It is not 
known to me that every capsule made by my house of 
Espinasse for Rimmel bore a bead border. It is not 
known to me that every Courdouzy capsule supplied to 
Rimmel bore a rope border. I will not swear that each 
of the capsules on the 11 Exhibits, and on those num¬ 
bered 211 and 401, was not made by my house of Espi¬ 
nasse, or that they were not sold and delivered by that 
house to Eugene Rimmel.” 
The Vice-Chancellor. —That is not the way to prove 
infringement. You do not even pledge your belief that 
they are not made of metal bought from you. 
Mr. Willcock. —We do not sell the metals. 
The Vice-Chancellor. —It would be monstrous if every¬ 
body found with a bottle of this kind were to be con¬ 
sidered an infringer. If these bills had been filed at the 
commencement of the patent, no one would have bought 
a single capsule. I should have taken the greatest pos¬ 
sible care not to do it. I should have said, I am not 
going to be drawn into a Chancery suit by buying one 
of these things. Have you any other evidence of the 
infringement ? 
Mr. Willcock. —The plaintiff also says, “ In answer 
to the 4th paragraph of the defendant’s affidavit, I say 
that the capsule on the bottle purchased at his shop, as 
stated in my former affidavit, was not made by me.” 
The Vice-Chancellor. — It might be perfectly true that 
the capsules were not made by him. Your patent is not 
for capsules, but for metal. 
