the penalty imposed by the 48th See MUNICIPAL CORPORation Acts.

PARTNERSHIP.

See BILL OF EXCHANGE, (1).
INCOME TAX.

PATENT.

See ROYALTY.

(1). Improved Mode of Manufacturing Gas-Deposit Paper-Specification.

The jury found that the invention, in respect of which the plaintiff applied for a patent, and in respect of which his patent was granted, whether aptly described in the deposit paper or not, was the plaintiff's invention.

which have been absorbed driven off. The best way to effect this is partially to take off the atmospheric pressure at the top or bottom of the purifier in which the purifying material is contained, by connecting it with a pipe to a hot and powerful chimney, &c., so as to cause a current of air, &c., to pass through the purifier. The current of air will drive off the volatile gases, &c., and re-oxidize the iron of the sulphuret of iron. &c. As The plaintiff, on applying for a pa- soon as the iron is re-oxidized, &c., tent, prior to the Patent Law Amend the gas is to be passed through it ment Act, 1852, delivered to the again, &c." He claimed first puriAttorney General a deposit paper fying gas by passing it through prestating, that his invention was (inter cipitated or hydrated oxides of iron; alia) For absorbing sulphuretted and secondly, renovating the purihydrogen and other gases into po-fying material by exposing it to the rous bodies, and renovating them action of the air. again either by heat, &c., or by taking off the atmospheric pressure." In November, 1849, he obtained a patent for "An improved mode of compressing peat for making fuel or gas and of manufacturing gas, and of obtaining certain substances applicable to purifying the same." The invention, described in the specification, was, passing the gas through a mixture consisting of the subsulphates, the oxychlorides, or the hydrated or precipitated oxides of iron, either by themselves or mixed with sulphate of lime, &c., and sawdust, or peat charcoal, &c.. “ so as to make a porous material, whereby the gas will be deprived of its sulphuretted hydrogen, which will be absorbed into the porous material, water being formed by the union of the oxygen of the oxide with the hydrogen of the sulphuretted hydrogen. As soon as the material ceases to purify the gas from sulphuretted hydrogen, the gas is to be shut off from the purifier, and a communication opened with the external air, which is to be admitted to the purifying material, and by the agency of which it will be renovated, and the uncombined gases

Held:-First, that, assuming the deposit paper delivered to the Attorney General did not correctly describe the matter in respect of which the plaintiff applied for a patent, the defendant was not entitled to have a verdict entered for him on a plea that the invention described in the specification was another and a different invention from that for which the letters patent were granted.

Semble per Pollock, C. B., that the deposit paper was not admissible for the purpose of cutting down, or affecting the construction of the Queen's grant in the letters patent though, if the Attorney General was deceived in making the grant by the erroneous description in the deposit paper, it might possibly be a ground for repealing the patent by scire facias.

In the specification of a prior patent for purifying gas, dated in 1840, one Croll, after speaking of the use

of black oxide of manganese for purifying gas went on to say, "The same effect may be produced by the application of the oxide of zinc, and the oxides of iron treated precisely in the way above described."-Held, that. assuming that Croll meant to claim all oxides of iron for purifying gas, inasmuch as some would not answer, the Court could not say, as a matter of law, that a patent could not be had by a person who afterwards discovered that precipitated hydrated oxides were those which it was proper to use.

The jury having found that Croll's specification did not disclose the use of hydrated oxides of iron, the Court refused to grant a new trial.

In working, for the purpose of completing the specification of his patent, Croll had used oxides of iron for the purification of gas, and the gas purified by him-to the extent of 20,000 feet a day, had for many days been mixed with the ordinary gas, and supplied to the public from the mains of a gas company. He had renovated the material by exposing it to heat on the top of some retortbeds. The oxides were originally in a hydrated state, and the heat used by him while so working was not sufficient to render them anhydrous; but, not knowing the difference between hydrated and anhydrous oxides, and supposing that a better result would thereby be obtained, he directed in his specification that the material should be raised to a red heat, which would render the oxides anhydrous. The jury having found that what Croll did was in the nature of an experiment and not a publication to the world. the Court refused to disturb the verdict on that point.

In 1847, one Laming having obtained a patent for the purification of g as by chloride of calcium, specified a mode of making the chloride of

calcium by decomposing muriate of manganese, iron, or zinc; and said, "The oxides or carbonates which result are useful for the said purification of gas, and need not be removed." The oxides so prepared would be hydrated.-Held, that the Court, on a comparison of Laming's specification with that of the plaintiff, could not say, as a matter of law, that Laming had anticipated the plaintiff's invention.

Before the date of the plaintiff's patent it was known that hydrated oxides of iron would absorb sulphuretted hydrogen; but it was not known that they could be practically used in the purification of coal gas from sulphuretted hydrogen.— Held, that a patent might be had for applying hydrated oxides to absorb sulphuretted hydrogen from coal gas.

It was also known that sulphuret of iron, produced by the action of sulphuretted hydrogen upon hydrated oxide of iron, would be re-oxidized by being exposed to the action of atmospheric air. But it was not known that when the sulphuret was produced by exposure of hydrated oxide of iron to the action of sulphuretted hydrogen mixed with coal gas, the re-oxidation of the iron might not be prevented by the cyanogen. compounds of ammonia and tarry matter which would be mixed with it.| Held, that a patent might be had for re-oxidizing the iron by exposure to the air after it had been used in the purification of coal gas.

Held also, that the plaintiff's invention came within the title of his patent as "an improved mode of manufacturing gas.' Hills v. The London Gas Light Company, 312

(2). Inspection, under 15 & 16 Vict. c. 63, of Manufacture alleged to be an Infringement.

Quare, whether a Court of com.

mon law, in making an order under 15 & 16 Vict. c. 83, s. 42, that a plaintiff may inspect a manufacture alleged to be an infringement of a patent, has power to direct that he shall be at liberty to take specimens of the same for the purpose of analysis.

The affidavits in support of such an application should bring all the facts before the Court precisely, and should be such as to satisfy the Court that there has been an infringement and that there is a necessity for their interposition.

PLEA.

See ARBITRATION, (1).
COMMON.
LIBEL, (1).

MASTER AND SERVANT, (3).
ROYALTY.

Puis darrein continuance. Where a plea that the plaintiff since the last pleading had been convicted of felony is pleaded puis darrein continuance, the plaintiff may confess the plea and sign judgment for his costs, by rule 23 of the Pleading Rules, Trin. T. 1853.

Barnett The London and North Western 604 Railway Company,

PLEADING SEVERAL MAT-
TERS.

able Grounds.

In an action against a printer for an infringement of a patent for improvements in the manufacture of type, the improvements consisting in the use of lead, tin and antimony in certain proportions, the plaintiff applied to the Court under the 42nd section for leave to inspect, and if necessary to take specimens of the (1). Bankruptcy and Flea on Equittype for the purpose of analysis. His affidavit stated that he had obtained from the defendant specimens of the type and caused them to be analysed by a chemist who was dead, and that the type so analysed was an infringement of the patent; but did not set out the report of the chemist or state its substance, or whether or not it was in writing. The Court refused to make an order that the plaintiff should be at liberty to take specimens for analysis. The Patent Type Founding Company (Limited) v. Lloyd. The Sume v. Walter,

PENALTY.

Declaration, on an indenture of assignment of certain leasehold messuages, by way of mortgage to secure 1500%., containing covenants, that the defendant would during the continuance of the terms, and while the 1500l. should be unpaid, or until the messages should be sold under the power in the indenture contained, pay the rents and observe the covenants contained in the leases on the lessees' part to be performed, and keep the premises insured from loss 192 by fire, &c. The covenants in the leases, were, that the lessees should repair, &c. Breaches that defendant did not pay the rents or perform the covenants, but made default in repairing and insuring. The Court refused to permit the defendant to plead, that the cause of action acI crued before the defendant became bankrupt, together with a plea, on equitable grounds, that the defendant

See BIRKENHEAD IMPROVEMENT
Acts.

PERPETUITY.

See RENT CHARGE.

PRINT.

See COPYRIGHT.

PROCHEIN AMI.

Removal of Insolvent.

To an action for goods sold and delivered, &c., the defendant was allowed to plead.-First: never indebted. Secondly payment. Thirdly: that the goods were exciseable liquors, to wit wine, sold by retail, to be consumed by the defendant and others on the plaintiff's premises, she not which an infant was plaintiff, his Where, in an interpleader issue in being licensed. Fourthly: that the nearest relative, who was insolvent, goods were wines and suppers sup; had been appointed prochein ami, plied to the defendant in a brothel the Court on motion removed him ; kept by the plaintiff, for the purpose it not appearing by affidavit that no of being consumed there by the de-solvent person could be found to act fendant and divers prostitutes in a on behalf of the infant. Lees v. debauch, to incite them to riotous, Smith, disorderly, and immoral conduct.

But this Court refused to allow the defendant to plead, together with the above pleas, that he was entirely deprived of understanding by intoxication, when he made the contracts, as the plaintiff well knew, and that the goods were liquors supplied to increase his intoxication, and that he derived no benefit from them. Hamilton v. Grainger, 40

POUND.

See DISTRESS, (2).

PRACTICE.

See APPEAL.

COSTS.

NOTICE.

SECURITY FOR COSTS.

PREDECESSOR.
See SUCCESSION DUTY.

PRESCRIPTION.

See COMMON.

PROHIBITION.

632