The plaintiffs admitted that the several parts of the machine were not new, individually; but they laid claim to novelty in their combination and use; and witnesses were called on their behalf, who stated that they had never heard of the spinning of silk, in the long fibre, from waste silk, until the plaintiffs invented and obtained their patent.

On behalf of the defendant, a large number of witnesses, of great respectability, were examined, who deposed, that silk was spun in the long fibre, from silk waste, long before the date of the plaintiffs' patent; and that their machine was neither new in its parts nor in their combination.

Among other witnesses, Mr. Pattison stated that, as far back as the year 1816, the same kind of fabric as that manufactured by the plaintiffs, was produced at his mills, at Congleton, and was sold by him to different houses in Coventry, Nottingham, London, and other places. The silk, thus manufactured, was spun from the flax-spinning machine then in use, differing, as was stated, in no respect from the model of the plaintiffs' machine, except in the distance between the rollers and the spindles, which frequently varied even in ordinary throstle frames.

Other witnesses spoke to the use of brass bosses or rollers, in the throstle frame, many years ago; and the application of water at the " nip," was sworn to have been known for the last forty years, and to have been in constant use ever since.

The Chief Justice summed up the evidence, and the Jury retired, for two hours, to consider their verdict; and at 10 o'clock at night they returned into Court, and stated their opinion, that the invention, as described in the plaintiffs' specification, was not new, but that the process was improved,-amounting to a verdict for the defendant.

A PROPER AND LEGITIMATE SUBJECT
FOR A PATENT.

The FRANKLIN JOURNAL, for May, has very elaborately discussed the question as to what is or is not a proper and legitimate subject for a patent.

It appears that John F. Kemper, Esq., of Cincinnati, applied to the Government Office, at Washington, for a grant of Letters Patent, in the United States, for his invention of an improvement in the manner of stowing ice. This improvement consisted merely in setting up the slabs of ice edgewise; as it was stated the petitioner had discovered that the ice would not melt so readily in that position as if laid flat, or thrown in a promiscuous heap.

The authorised functionaries, after an examination of the petition and specification, refused the grant, and delivered the following answer :

Sir," The specification of your improved vessel for stowing and carrying ice, is herewith returned for amendment in the claim, which is deemed to be too broad; the mode of arranging the ice, by placing the blocks edgewise, cannot, in the judgment of this office, constitute a claim to a patent, as it is believed, that every one has a right to pack away ice, by placing the blocks edgewise, or in any other position. The mode of caulking does not present any thing substantially new, the same having long since been effected."

Yours, &c.,

H. L. ELLSWORTH.

This official report seems to have produced a very long corre spondence between the law officers and the legal advisers of the petitioner; but the main feature of argument discussed, is,

2 Y

VOL. XVIII.

whether setting up the slabs of ice edgewise, is such an invention as ought to be made the subject of a patent.

The solicitor for the petitioner says, "it appears to me that, in the case in hand, the office has entirely mistaken its powers and its duties, and has assumed an authority not intended to be given to it by the legislature." He then goes on to say, that under the laws of the United States, patents are granted for "any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement on any art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, not known or used by others before his or their discovery or invention."

The question then is this:-Is the packing of ice edgewise, a new and useful art? or a new and useful improvement on any art? Philadelphia was once proverbially famous for its learned lawyers, and their tact in treating a knotty question; that talent seems not to have extended itself to Washington.

Without determining what the wisdom of our Attorney-General or Solicitor-General might have resolved under these difficult circumstances, we feel perfectly satisfied, that after the grant of such a patent, and the inrolment of a most skilfully drawn specification of the invention, all the courts of law in the British Empire would have been unable to prevent any man from setting up his ice edgewise, if he thought proper so to do.

List of Patents

Granted by the French Government from the 1st of April to the 30th of June, 1840.

PATENTS FOR TEN YEARS,- -CONTINUED.

Lassere, of Coudet-sur-Vezère, (Dordogne,) for a machine for making chains in metallic wire.

Hallette, of Arras, for a machine for excavating and dragging. Grenetier, of Lyons, for a lithographic press.

Zimmer, of Paris, for a machine for spinning flax and hemp. Gentilhomme, of Rambervillers, for improvements in flour mills. Lasseron and Rollet, of Niort, for an apparatus for the preservation of corn.

Sprye, of Paris, for the calcination of sulphate of lime.

Havard, Uncle and Nephew, for a water-closet.

Bourdon, of Paris, for an apparatus for telling the level of water

in steam generators.

Muel, of Paris, for Persian blinds, in iron, &c.

Marie, of Paris, for a new lamp.

Chibon, of Paris, for a new system of roofing houses.

Fauquet Lemaître, of Bolbec, for improved looms.

Manby, of London, for the means of making gas for illumination. Randall, of Paris, for an improved knapsack.

Rambaud, of Lyons, for an improved powder for the clarifying of wines.

Pernet, of Paris, for improved trusses.

Lamotte, of Bruxelles, for a new pump.

Triger and Lascasses, of Paris, for an improved method of constructing shafts in mines.

Truffaut, of Paris, for an apparatus for preserving people from immersion.

Sudds, Adkins, and Barker, of Rouen, for a mechanical process for uniting bands or straps used in machinery.

Bleyer, of Mulhouse, for a method of decomposing the sulphate of lead.

Malmazet, Sen., Desplanque, Jun., and Co., of Lille, for looms for manufacturing brocaded tissues.

Caussin, of Berthenay, (Haute Marne,) for an improved machine for reaping corn.

Callas, of Paris, for powder to preserve worsted articles from

moths

Jardin, of Belleville, for an apparatus for portative aromatic dry baths.

PATENTS FOR FIVE YEARS.

Vendroux, of Calais, represented in Paris by M. Perpigna, advocate of the French and Foreign Office for Patents, Rue Choiseul, No. 2, ter., for improvements in that kind of bobbin net frames, known under the name of straight bolts.

Lalande, represented in Paris by M. Perpigna, advocate, for new

stores.

Vacheron and Lefrançois, represented in Paris by M. Perpigna, advocate, for tissues in caoutchouc, without seams.

Holtorp, of Paris, represented in Paris by M. Perpigna, advocate, for an improved lamp burner.

Marion, represented in Paris by M. Perpigna, advocate, for the manufacture of paper with prismatic rays.

Mathey, of Baume les Dames, represented in Paris by M.Perpigna, advocate, for locomotives without rails.

Gillet and Monier, represented in Paris by M. Perpigna, advocate, for impermeable fabrics.

Blondel, of Rouen, represented in Paris by M. Perpigna, advocate, for improvements in looms.

Benoist, of Neubourg, represented in Paris by M. Perpigna, ad

vocate, for an apparatus by which the snuffing of candles is dispensed with.

Carteron, of Mâcon, represented in Paris by M. Perpigna, advocate, for an inexplosible steam generator.

Delonay, of Die, represented in Paris by M. Perpigna, advocate, for a weighing instrument.

Bouchet, Sen., of Nimes, represented in Paris by M. Perpigna,

advocate, for improved steam-engines.

Papavoine and Chatel, of Rouen, represented in Paris by M. Perpigna, advocate, for the manufacturing of cards for wool and cotton.

Coffineau, of Paris, for an oven for baking plaster and lime.
De Bergue, of Paris, for an improved loom.

Whitehead, of Brompton, near London, for a new coffee pot.