Which surplus of 20,1797. 1s. is the total nett return upon a capital of 104,2297. 17s. 8d.-the actual cost, but much more than the present value of the patent-the amount actually expended in the erection of the commercial telegraphs; or upon a capital of 137,8331. 8s. 4d. if the patent account is to have the benefit of the above nominal charge of 33,6037. 10s. 8d.

The evidence which was adduced in support of the petitioners' case was chiefly directed to show the reasonable charges made by the company, and the accuracy of the accounts.

Their Lordships decided that, as the patentees themselves had been sufficiently rewarded, the company-who derived their right from themhad no locus standi, and therefore refused the application.

To be Continued.

For the Journal of the Franklin Institute.

Description of Improvements in Seeding Machines. Patented by S. & M. PENNOCK, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania, July 8th, 1851.*

Fig. 1 represents the Pennock Drill, as last improved.

Fig. 2, is a sectional view of the same. Figures 3 and 4 represent the cylinders for distributing the grain. Figures 5 and 8 represent the improved depositing tube shown in fig. 2. Figures 6 and 7 are modifications of the same. The same letters on different figures represent the

same parts. In fig. 2, A is the seed hopper; B, cog-wheel upon the end of the seeding cylinder; C, an intermediate wheel, by which motion is imparted to the seeding cylinder, B, from the cog-wheel D, which is fixed on the axle of the machine. E, a leathern tube to conduct the

See page 101.

grain from the cylinder B, into the iron depositing tube, F; G, a selfadjusting lever; H, a handle by which the entire machine is thrown out of gear; L, a lever by which the entire machine is thrown into gear; J, the handle for starting and stopping each row separately; a and c are sections of the cylinder, or cylinder caps, the proper thickness for the depth

FIG. 5.

FIG. 2.

A

of the seed receptacles; b is an oblique projection cast upon the periphery of a plain ring, forming the bottom of the seed receptacles.

The projection, b, is fixed to its place against either the a or b section of the cylinder, by a screw entering it through the end of the cylinder cap, against which it is fixed.

To adapt the cylinder to seeding wheat, rye, or smaller seeds, the projections b, are to be confined to the cap, a, as in fig. 3, forming 12 medium sized seed receptacles. For planting corn, oats, or other large

grain, the projections, b, are attached to the cap, c, by changing the screw to that end of the cylinder, thus forming but six large seed receptacles, as in fig. 4.

The seed receptacles may be varied in size at pleasure, by simply loosing the screw nut, e, from against the washer, d, which is of such a peculiar form as to throw the line of bearing at right angles to the contiguous obliquities of the teeth upon the caps a and c.

The depositing tubes are suspended in a forked bar by side bearings at T. N, are three holes in which a wooden pin is inserted to secure the depositing tube in its proper position, said pin being intended to break and allow the point of the depositing tube to turn backward when it comes in contact with a rock, root, &c., whilst the machine is in motion.

The depth to which the grain is deposited is regulated simply by changing the said pin from one of the holes, N, to the other. In figures 6 and 7, the pin rests on the top of the drag-bar, and must invariably give way when the point of the tube comes against a fixed obstruction; while in figs. 5 and 8, the lever, G, is made to relieve the pin (upon which it bears at P), when approaching rocks, &c., by tightening the chain, K, as in fig. 8, allowing the point of the tube to turn backwards and pass over the obstruction, as in fig. 5, without damaging said point. When the tube has passed the rock, it falls forward of its own weight, drawing the point R, of the lever, G, down upon the cam, S, holding it in its proper place, as in fig. 5, until the chain, K, is loosed, when the lever, G, again falls with its notched end, P, upon the wooden pin, and the machine moves on without detention. Another great advantage possessed by Pennock's patent depositing tubes over others, is the impossibility of clogging or damaging them when the horses set, or run backward with them in the ground, the arrangement being such as to allow them to turn forward, as in fig. 6. Each depositing tube is provided with a point, steel plate, O, which is not only reversible, but either of its points may be extended several times as they become worn.

These plates alone are a saving to the farmer of from $12 to $15; so each sell. The hinge joints W and T, are both of such peculiar construction as to admit of removing the drag-bar from the frame of the machine, and the depositing tube from the drag-bar, without the use of any kind of mechanical improvement, or without loosing a screw.

Opinion of JUSTICE CRESSWELL, in the Case of The Electric Telegraph Company vs. Brett and Little.*

Judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Cresswell as follows:-This was an action brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants for the infringement of a patent. The patent was granted in 1837 to Messrs. Cooke and Wheatstone, for "improvements in giving signals and sounding alarms in distant places, by means of electric currents transmitted through metallic circuits," and was afterwards assigned to the plaintiffs. The action was tried at the sittings after Hilary term, 1850, before Lord Chief Justice Wilde, and a verdict was then found for the plaintiffs; and From the London Railway Magazine, No. 621.

in answer to certain questions put to the jury by the learned judge, certain special matters were found, on which the defendants had leave to move to enter the verdict for the defendants. A rule nisi was accordingly obtained, to which cause was shown; and in the argument the chief question raised was, what was the proper verdict to be entered in respect of the special matters found by the jury in answer to the questions of the Lord Chief Justice. To the third question, which was material, the jury found that the magnetic ring and indicator of the defendants was a different instrument from the needle claimed in the specification of the plaintiff's patent; and they also found, in answer to the fourth question, that "the sending of signals to the intermediate stations was new to the plaintiffs," by which expression was to be understood that it was a new invention of the patentees. The jury also found, in answer to the fifth question, "that the angular motions of the needles in vertical planes or horizontal axles, conjointly with the stops, was new to the plaintiffs,' meaning that it was a new invention of the patentees. In answer to the sixth question, they found, "that as a whole the defendants' system of communicating with one wire and two needles was not the same as the plaintiffs'." It was insisted by the plaintiffs on showing cause, that on these findings they were entitled to retain the verdict in respect to the answers on the fourth and fifth questions. It appeared that the defendants, by means of duplicate coils and apparatus at the intermediate stations, had sent signals to all the intermediate stations, as well as between the terminal stations, and that they used an instrument moving in a vertical plane, called "a magnetic ring and indicator," producing nearly the same result as the needle described in the plaintiffs' specification. The jury, however, having found that the magnetic ring and indicator was a different instrument to the needle used by the plaintiffs, the defendants insisted that their use of it was no infringement of the plaintiffs' patent. The objection, however, mainly relied upon, was, that the plaintiffs' specification protected only the patentees' improvements as applied to metallic circuits, and that if the electric current was transmitted by improved machinery, not by a circuit wholly metallic, the improvements might be used without an infringement of the patent. The defendants using the earth to complete the circuit of the electric current, did not use a metallic circuit, and, therefore, they denied that the use of the plaintiffs' other improvements was an infringement of the patent. This was a grave objection, but the Court was of opinion, after full consideration, that it ought not to prevail. At the time of the grant of the patent the transmission of electric currents through metallic circuits was known, and also that the power of the current might be increased by coils in the wire. The discovery that the earth would complete the circuit of the current between the two ends of the wire struck into the ground, was made after the grant of the patent. The patentees did not, therefore, claim the invention of metallic circuits, but only improvements in the method of using electric currents-the currents being transmitted by a means open to the public. The circuit used by the defendants, so far as it operated in giving signals, and in all the parts to which the plaintiffs' improvements applied, was metallic: and it was not a necessary condition that the residue of the circuit should be metallic. The

specification which claimed and described the invention was to be more strictly construed than the title of the patent, and the Court thought that the specification sufficiently comprehended all circuits that were metallic, as far as it was material to the improvements claimed that they should be so. And with regard to the use of the term, "metallic currents," in the title of the patent, the Court thought the title gave sufficient notice to any person acquainted with the discovery, or who had invented similar improvements to the patentees', to put him on his guard as to the nature. of the plaintiffs' patent, and lead him to enquire how far any contemplated improvements would infringe it. The Court thought it but reasonable to hold that a claim for a patent for improvements in the mode of doing something by a known process, was sufficient to entitle the claimant to a patent for his improvements, when applied either to the process as known at the time of the claim, or to the same process altered and improved by subsequent discoveries. The next objection was, that the plaintiffs' patent was for a system of giving signals by means of several wires and converging needles pointed to certain letters, whereas the defendants used one wire, and made signals by counting the deflexions of the needle, which was found by the jury to be a different system. The Court thought this objection founded on a wrong discussion of the specification, which showed the patent to be not for a system of giving signals, but for certain distinct and specified improvements comprehending those now in question. The Court, therefore, thought the objections ought not to prevail to the grounds on which the plaintiffs claimed the verdict in respect. to vertical needles and of the use of duplicates at intermediate stations. It might be doubtful whether the plaintiffs could claim the verdict with regard to the use of vertical needles by the defendants, considering the finding of the jury; but the Court thought that the use of duplicate apparatus at the intermediate stations, which the jury found to be a new invention, and which undoubtedly the defendants had used, entitled the plaintiffs in this respect to keep their verdict. If, however, the defendants' discovery enabled intermediate stations to send as well as receive signals, that was a very important improvement, for which the inventor might probably be entitled to a patent, though he might not be entitled to use it except by the license of the patentee of the less perfect invention on which the latter invention was grounded. For these reasons the Court thought the plaintiffs entitled to retain their verdict, and the rule must be discharged. Rule discharged.

Opinion of Judge Kane, delivered before the United States District Court, Pennsylvania, in the Case of Detmold vs. Reeves, on a Motion for an Injunction, September, 1851.

This is an application for a special injunction to restrain the defendants from further violating the complainant's patent.

The complainant, Mr. Detmold, is the assignee, and as such, the patentee in this country of an invention made by Mr. Faber du Faur, and patented by him in 1840 and 1841, in Bavaria and Wurtemburg. The American patent was issued in 1842, but it was amended and re-issued