July 9, 1870.] 
THE PHABMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
35 
Mr. Willcock. —We say we did not sell it. 
The Vice-Chancellor. —I see evidence that you did not 
make the capsules, hut I do not see a statement that it 
was not made of your material. 
Mr. Willcock. —We do not sell the material to any¬ 
body. 
The Vice-Chancellor. —There is no evidence of that fact. 
I have not seen a particle of evidence of the fact that 
you do not sell, or that your agents in Paris do not sell, 
the materials, or that the man at Bordeaux does not sell 
it. 
Mr. Willcock. —I wish to suppose that your Honour is 
not satisfied of that, and that is why I was going to the 
other question, because that raises the point which I 
wished to call your Honour’s attention to. The question 
is put to Mr. Betts, “ When you say in your affidavit of 
April, 1869, that the capsules were not made hy you, do 
you mean to swear that they were not made by your 
French house of Espinasse ?” A. 1 hold that those made 
by my French house are not made by me as regards 
England most assuredly. Q. Suppose capsules were 
made at your manufactory at Bordeaux, should you swear 
that they were not made by you ? A. Decidedly, in the 
sense in which I understand it. Unless they are of a 
certain kind, they have no business to come into this 
country, and hence would be ignored by me, and so with 
my Paris or any other house abroad. I explain it in this 
way. Betts as a manufacturer in France is a French¬ 
man. I sell capsules there to be used upon bottles, and 
such capsules may come into this country, but no capsules 
off bottles of any kind should I make or tolerate to come 
into England, to have one set against another. There 
is Betts, an Englishman, and there is Betts, a French¬ 
man, the one with English rights, and the other with 
French rights. Those which may come into England 
are those which bear my patent trade-mark, and my 
legend round it, and these must come on bottles. The 
Betts to whom I allude is myself.” It is an odd way of 
putting it very likely, but, at the same time it stands 
thus. In France his right as a patentee had expired. 
He manufactures in France, but then what he manufac¬ 
tures in France and sells, the buyer has no right to bring 
into England. In England he is protected against the 
infringement. 
The Vice-Chancellor. —If I buy from him in France, 
surely he cannot say that I have no right to bring them 
into England ? Do you mean to say an English patentee 
can establish a manufacture abroad, and then say that 
the person to whom he sells cannot introduce the goods 
into this country ? 
Mr. Eddis. —If your Honour looks at the next para¬ 
graph, you will see these words, “ When you have spoken 
of foreign manufactures, have you included in that 
phrase yourself as a Frenchman ?” A. “ Yes, in the 
sense in which I used it.” 
Mr Willcock. —I submit to your Honour that that evi¬ 
dence is sufficient to establish our case. 
The Vice- Chancellor. —I have read the depositions care¬ 
fully through, and I must say this case seems to me about 
the most impudent case that ever came into Court. A 
man says y r ou have infringed my patent. I did not make 
the capsules which you sell; I am quite sure of that; 
they were made by foreign manufacture. Then he is 
asked, Do you include in the term “ foreign manufac¬ 
ture ” the goods made by your agents abroad ? and he 
says, “ I do.” I am glad my attention was called to this, 
because it seems to me monstrous for a man to act in this 
way. I must say it is not creditable to the plaintiff, 
when he swears in his affidavit that these goods were not 
made by him, to divide himself into an Englishman 
and a Frenchman, and to say that he meant that these 
goods were not made by him in his English capacity, 
but that they were made by him in his foreign capacity. 
I dismiss the bill with costs. 
Mr. Eddis. —That will apply to all the suits ? 
The Vice-Chancellor .—Yes. I am shocked at such a 
mode of making an affidavit; I hope never to see it 
again. Each bill is dismissed with costs. 
Clja^tcrs for Staicnts. 
LIGHT. 
BY WILLIAM A. TILDEN, B.SC. LOND. 
DEMONSTRATOR OF PRACTICAL CHEMISTRY TO THE 
PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY. 
1. Light is an agent which is, in many respects, 
analogous to heat, but there are one or two impor¬ 
tant differences between them. For example, heat 
passes through bodies by conduction, and is carried 
from place to place by convection as well as by radi¬ 
ation ; light is known only in the radiant state. 
2. Objects are visible only under two conditions :— 
a , when they are self-luminous, that is, when they 
generate light; or, b, when they receive light from 
some source, and throw it off again (reflect it) hi 
such a way that at least some part of it strikes upon 
the nervous apparatus of the eye. 
3. Bodies may be arranged in a rough way into 
three classes, according as they permit light to pass 
through them or not. 
Transparent bodies, such as ordinary window- 
glass, are those which transmit light without sensibly 
scattering it. Objects are, therefore, visible through 
such media without alteration of outline. 
Translucent bodies, for example, ground glass or 
fog, scatter the light which passes through them in 
such a way that the outlines of objects seen through 
them are confused or even obliterated. 
Opaque bodies are those which stop and absorb or 
reflect all the light which falls upon them. 
There is no such tiling as perfect transparency, 
for even air and white glass stop a part of the light 
incident upon them, and there is probably also no 
such thing as perfect opacity, for even metals, when 
they can be beaten thin enough, transmit a little 
light. 
4. When a ray of light falls on a perfectly smooth 
surface, the whole or part of it is rejected, and it 
takes a new course, which is inclined at an angle to 
its former course. This is reflection. The law by 
which the direction of the reflected ray is regulated 
is expressed usually thus :—“ The angle of incidence 
is equal to the angle of reflection.” Suppose A B 
to represent the surface of a flat mirror; I, a ray 
coming through a small hole in the shade of the 
lamp, and “ falling upon” the surface of the mirror, 
may be called the incident ray; R, the course into 
which it is “ bent back,” is the position of the re¬ 
flected ray. If now a line, real or imaginary, be 
drawn to the surface of the mirror at the point C, 
the law tells us that the incident ray, I, will always 
form with C D the same angle that R forms with 
C D. And the three lines, I, C D, and R, will al- 
