Page:The Building News and Engineering Journal, Volume 22, 1872.djvu/408

 386 and name buildings of note within a radius of twenty miles, and who to apply to for permission to sketch in the Tower ?—A ScoTcHMAN IN LoNnDON. [2561.])—Canterbury Cathedral.—Is there a difficulty in getting permission to sketch inside Canter- bury Cathedral? If so, how can liberty be obtained ? —A ScoTCHMAN In LONDON. REPLIES. (2543.)—Milled Lead.—In answer to this question, I beg leave to tell your correspondent that milled lead is usually made 7{t. wide and from 31ft. to 32ft. long; but some manufacturers will make it to oider by giving them time to execute the order.—E. B. (2544.)—Right and Left Hand Locks.—In answer to the inquiry respecting locks, ‘‘ A Mechanic will find that the ironmonger’s rule is the following : Hold the lock in both hands before you, with the in- side face towards the person, and whichever way the bolts shoot is the name of lock required, I may add that most builders name locks according to the side of the door itis on when you open the same from the in- side, and that is the reason of so many mistakesarising from so simple a thing. The bevil of bolt is no crite- rion to go by, as the lock may be what is termed reverse bolted. Right and left handed rising butts are told by the following easy plan: If left-handed butts are required, first open the same face towards you, and if the right-hand portion of the hinge is the highest then the butt is left handed, or vice versd.—E. B. —_———_a—_—_. LEGAL INTELLIGENCE. Tue §S, Sreruen’s CLvs.—In the Court of Queen's Bench, on Tuesday, the case of “The Queen v. Vulliamy ” was decided. A rule had been obtained calling upon the superintending architect of the Metropolitan Board of Works to show cause why an order made by him on the 15th December last should not be brought up by certiorari, with a view to its being quashed. It appeared that the masters of S. Stephen's Club had purchased of the Metropolitan District Railway Company the waste spot of ground at the corner of Bridge-street, Westminster, and the Thames Embankment, whereon they proposed to erect a building for the purposes of the Club. The Metropolitan Board of Works had laid down a general line of building onthe spot, extending to the end of Mr. Horsman’s house, at the end of Richmond- terrace, which abutted on the Embankment. Between that and Bridge-street there was only one other building, that of the Board of Control, and the ques- tion for the consideration of the court was whether this was such a street or continuous line of buildings as gives the Metropolitan Board of Works power to instruct their superintending architect to lay down a line of building so as to ensure uniformity. The superintending architect had laid down a line which would have the effect of diminishing materially the space upon which it was proposed to build the Club- house. The Lord Chief Justice said that he and his learned brothers had visited the spot, and they were of opinion that there was no pretence for saying that the ground in question was a street or place within the meaning of the Act that gives the Metropolitan Board of Works power to interfere. It was not a continuous line of buildings. Mr. Horsman’s house considerably projected beyond the houses below it on the Embankment, and the Board of Control pro- jected much farther. It must be an actnal, and not an imaginary, line of buildings to bring the matter within the meaning of the Act. The rule would be made absolute to quash the order. Murray v. CLAyton.—This was an appeal heard in the Court of Chancery from a decision of Vice- Chancellor Bacon. The hearing of the arguments has occupied four days this term, and on Monday morning the judgment of the Court was delivered. The plaintiff is a manufacturer of a machine for making bricks, for which he took outa patent in 1866. The bill was filed against the partners in the firm of Messrs. Clayton, Son, & Howlett, and a Mr. Burdett, the patentee of a machine manufactured by Messrs. Clayton, to restrain the infringement of the plaintiff’s patent, and for an account of the profits made from the manufacture of such machines. By his specifi- cation the plaintiff claimed :—‘“ Particularly cutting the clay into the form of bricks by forcing the clay forward by means of a pushing board or otherwise | against aseriesof fixed wires, 80 arranged thatthe clay is pushed or forced past the wires on to a ‘moveable board’ provided with handles, so that 12 orany other convenient number of bricks may be removed at the same time.” ‘Ihe defendants denied the validity of the plaintiff's patent mainly on the ground that the invention had been anticipated by a patent knownas Dahlke’s, which was founded on an invention made in Germany by one Sachsenberg, and by a machine which the defendants themselves made after Sach- senberg, with some variations. The Vice-Chan- cellor was of opinion that the defendants had made out their case, and he dismissed the bill. The plaintiff appealed. — Mr. Webster, QC., Mr. Higgins, Q.C., and Mr. Melville were for the plaintiff; Mr. Pooks, Q.C., and Mr. Theodore Aston, Q.C., were for the defendants.—Lord Justice James said that the case had occupied a long time, but when the real questions between the parties came to be eliminated from the mass of the evidence, THE BUILDING NEWS. they did not require any very long time for dis- cussion nor present any great difficulty in determi- nation. The plaintiff had given the usual prima facie evidence of his being the first inventor, and he had produced in favour of the novelty and practical utility of his invention a mass of evidence greater than his Lordship had ever witnessed in any similar case. There was the evidence of brickmakers, engi- neers, Government contractors, who had not been cross-examined, One of these witnesses said that bricks made by the plaintiff's machine were worth 2s. per thousand more than other bricks. All this evidence was practically uncontradicted. Then came the question whether the invention was novel de jure as wellas de facto—that is, whether it had been anti- cipated. His Lordship was of opinion that the plain meaning of the plaintiff's specification was that he claimed the machine, the combination which enabled him to effect the result, so that by one or more turns of the wrist he could cut a mass of clay into a number of bricks without their being touched by the hand of the operator. The question was whether that had been anticipated in any manner. The only things relied upon to show that it had been anticipated were Dahlke’s patent and the machine made at the defendant's works, and known as the German machine. As to Dahlke’s invention it was for a thing so substantially different from the plaintiff's in prin- ciple and inall its details that, if it were made now, it could not be considered in any respect an infringement of the plaintiff's patent. The only thing common to the two was the division of the clay by a cutting wire. After leading a fruitless existence of three years, Dahlke’s patent was suffered to expire. As to the machine made at the defendants’ works, which they made in 1864 after the German description of Sach- senberg’s machine, substituting a table for rollers, there was a mass of evidence. It appeared that this machine was made at the defendants’ works, and was exhibited at work at their shop to a great number of ergineers and brickmakers. It did not appear to have been made for sale, but it was a working specimen. Of all those witnesses who saw it at work not one said that he thought it a machine of the slightest utility. The evidence on the other side showed that it was an entire failure, that it was useless for any practical purpose whatever; the labour in working it was too great. The merit of every invention of this kind was that it saved labour. His Lordship was aware of no case where the exhibition of a useless machine had been held to affect the rights of a patentee who had made a useful machine, though there might be some simi- larity between the two. If there were defects in the German machine which the plaintiff cured, though he did not know of that machine, he would be entitled to maintain his patent. His Lordship thought it impossible that stronger evidence should be produced than had been pro- duced here of the novelty of the plaintiff's invention. It was so simple, and so well caltulated to effect the object intended, that the only wonder was that people had gone on for thousands of years making bricks without hitting uponit. With regard to the question whether the defendants had infringed the plaintiffs patent, it appeared to his Lordship that the defendant’s machine was a mere transposi- tion; they moved the wires against the clay instead of moving the clay against the wires, as the plain- tiffs did. There was nothing but a colourable varia- tion, and it was plain that the alteration could only have been made for the purpose of evading the plaintiffs patent. The object was effected by means of a much larger expenditure of power. But as was said by Lord Hatherley, in the case of “ Daw y. Eley,” a clumsy invention might be an infringe- ment, though it would not have been an anticipation. On the whole, his Lordship was of opinion that the plaintiff had made out his case; that he was the first inventor of a new and very valuable invention; and that the defendants had failed to make out that there had been any anticipation of it. It was proved also that the defendants had committed an intringe- ment, and there must be a decree for a perpetual in- junction against them, and they must pay the costs of the suit.—Lord Justice Mellish concurred. CLAIM FoR Maktne Bricks.—STRONG v. Hery- wortru.—The plaintiff in this ease (heard lately at the Blackburn County Court, before W. A. Halton, Esq., the judge) was a brickmaker, and the defendant a manufacturer. The claim was for £7 13s., for bricks made. Last spring defendant made a contract with plaintiff for making some bricks for him. The plaintiff made 294,000 bricks, and the defendant had only paid for 285,000. On the part of the defendant a letter was produced with the signa- ture of the plaintiff to the contract, which was not put in by the plaintiff. Legally, if there is any written contract in existence it must be put in stamped, under penalty. His Honour took cognisance of this fact, but allowed the case to go on,—Plaintiff said that defendant had offered to give him one-half of the balance to prevent a dispute. He (plaintiff) would not take it. Cross-examined: Did not rely on his own counting, which was left to Mr. Hoyle. manager for Mr, Heyworth.—Thomas Holt,employed as a temperer in making the bricks, said he had booked the work done weekly,—A witness named Howitt said he had also made the entries and they amounted to 294,000.—Edward Slater also produced May 10, 1872. a book in which he had entered the number of bricks, which amounted to the same number.—A witness named Righy Kilner said he counted against the others, and made the entries in a book, and the number was 294,000.—On the part of the defendant, Mr. Hoyle, bookkeeper to Mr. Heyworth, said he had counted the bricks by the flat ; he had no doubt whatever about the accuracy of his count, which brought the number to 285,000.—His Honour gaye a verdict for the defendant. ——_—____ PARLIAMENTARY NOTES. Puntic Heartx Bruy.—On Tuesday, in reply to Lord I. Montagu, Mr. Gladstone said that the Public Health Bill would not be taken on the first Monday after the Whitsuntide holidays, as the practice was to take Supply on that day. Royat Parks AND GARDENS Briu.— This bill passed through Committee of the House of Lords on Thursday week. Tue Potturtion or Rivers my Scorianp. — Colonel Learmonth asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cause of the delay in the publication of the report of the Royal commission on the pollution of rivers in Scotland.— Mr. Bruce said the report was presented in the recess, and the delay in its publication had arisen from the fact that the Commissioners had since entered into a further inquiry on the subject. He hoped, however, that the report would be in the hands of hon. mem- bers before Whitsuntide. THE SHEEPSHANKS COLLECTION or ProTuRES.— In answer to Sir ©, Dilke, Mr. Forster said the House would be aware that the pictures presented by the late Mr. Sheepshanks to the nation were in the South Kensington Museum. It was true that when Mr. Sheepshanks made his generous gift he expressed a wish that the pictures should be exhibited on Sundays, but he did not make that a condition of the gift. A deputation had waited on Lord Ripon and himself (Mr. Forster) to express the wish of several public meetings held in London that the South Kensington Museum should be opened to the public on Sundays. But if that were done the British Museum would have to be opened also, and, without expressing any personal opinion upon the matter, he might say thatthe Government did not feel warranted at present in taking such a step. METROPOLITAN WATER SuppLy.—In answer to Sir J. Kay-Shuttleworth, Mr. C. Fortescue said on Monday that the water companies of the metropolis had complied with the requirements of the Metropoli- tan Water Act of last session by submitting regnla- tions on which they were agreed to the Board of Trade and the Metropolitan authorities, but which were of no authority till confirmed after an inquiry by the Board of Trade, at which the water and Metropolitan authorities would have the right of being heard. A circular had been sent by the Board of Trade to the authorities whose interests were afiected to state their objections to the regulations, and the time of the inquiry, at the request of the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Corporation of London, had been extended to the 28th inst., but he could not say how long it would last. Tu CasHEeL Rock.—A bill has been introduced to Parliament by Mr. Heron, Sir John Esmonde, Sir John Gray, and others, to vest in trustees the Rock of Cashel for the purposes of the restoration of the Cathedral and the preservation of the historical ruins, The bill provides that all burial vaults, tombs, monuments, and private rights of sepultwre on the Roek of Cashel belonging to individuals, and all other private rights of property (if any) on the Rock of Cashel belonging to individuals, are hereby saved and excepted out of the operation of this Act as if this Act had not passed. > WATER SUPPLY AND SANITARY MATTERS. MircHAmM.—The Holborn Board have just received a report from their architect on the schools at Miteham, from which it appears that the draining is so defective that water drawn from a well in the yard is found to be impregnated with sewage. The estimated works required to remedy this shocking state of things will cost from £800 to £1,000. No wonder, observes the Parochial Critic, that 17 per cent. of the children are suffering from ophthalmia. Roatu.—At the meeting of the Roath Loeal Board, on Tuesday, the surveyor presented plans and sections of a scheme to drain the undrained por - tion of Roath into the River Rumney. The cost of the scheme he estimated at £2,400. A special meet- ing will be held on Monday evening to consider the scheme, Rururn.—Ruthin has recently been visited by Dr. Home, one of the inspectors of the Medical De- partment of the Loeal Government Board, who thus sums up the results of his inspection :—Inthe borough of Ruthin there exist the unwholesome conditions which foster certain kinds of disease, and which aggravate all others. ‘l’hose conditions arise natu- rally from the fact of its being an old town, where the soil and dwellings have received the accumu-