Q. B.] BROWNLOW v. THE METROPOLITAN Board or WORKS AND ANOTHER. 6 inches, and for every waggon, wain, cart, or other such carriage having the fellies of the wheels thereof of the breadth of 4 inches, and less than 6 inches at the bottom or soles thereof, or for the horse or horses, or other cattle drawing the same, one-fourth more than the tolls or duties which are or shall be payable on any carriage of the like description, having the wheels thereof of the breadth of 6 inches, by any Act or Acts of Parliament now in force, or hereafter to be passed for making or maintaining any turnpike-road, before any such waggon, wain, cart, or other carriage respectively shall be permitted to pass through any turnpikegate or gates, bar or bars, where toll shall be payable by virtue of any such Acts." [C. B. a general scale but a particular one regulated by the number of horses of draught, and was therefore overruled by the general Act; that the general Act of 3 Geo. 4, c. 126, operated upon the toll of 3d. given by the local Act unaffected by the proviso therein; that even if the proviso in the local Act did apply to the present case, the words "six inches or more" must be construed with reference to the provisions of the general Act and the imposition of a toll to mean an excess of six inches; that according to the complainant's construction of the statutes it would be impossible to frame a table of tolls for the road, inasmuch as the additional toll imposed by the 7th section of 3 Geo. 4, c. 126, on wheels 4 Our attention was also called to the Act amending inches and under 6 inches in breadth would, by such the last-mentioned Act, 4 Geo. 4, c. 95, sects. 5 and 6. construction, amount to 1d. and a fraction of a farAnd also to the repealed General Turnpike Act, 13 thing; and that the intent of the Legislature in Geo. 3, c. 84, s. 23, which enacts, "that the trustees passing the 13 Geo. 3, c. 84, s. 23, and 3 Geo. 4, appointed by virtue or under the authority of any Act c. 126, s. 7, was to increase the tolls payable under of Parliament made for repairing or amending turn- local Acts, whilst the effect of the construction sought pike-roads, or such person or persons as are authorised for by the complainant would be to diminish the tolls by them, shall and may and are hereby required to imposed by the local Act in question, which the Legisdemand and take for every waggon, wain, cart, or car-lature could not have intended. riage having the fellies of the wheels thereof of less We were of opinion that the toll taken in respect of breadth or gauge than 6 inches from side to side at the complainant's horse was greater than authorised by least at the bottom or sole thereof, and for the law. One of us considered that if the waggon in queshorses or beasts of draught drawing the same, one-half tion had had wheels with fellies of 6 inches breadth, more than the tolls or duties which are or shall the toll should have been the sum of 1d. only, under be payable for the same respectively; and for every the local Act, and that the collector was authorised to waggon, wain, cart, or carriage having the fellies of the take one half more in addition, viz. d., making together wheels thereof of less breadth or gauge than 6 inches 24d., and the other of us considered that the toll taken from side to side at the least at the bottom or sole by the collector should have been the 3d. toll menthereof, and for the horses or beasts of draught draw-tioned in the local Act. ing the same, from and after the 29th Sept. 1776, double the toll or duties which are or shall be payable for the same respectively by any Act or Acts of Parliament made for amending or repairing turnpike-roads, before any such waggon, wain, cart, or carriage respectively shall be permitted to pass through any turnpike-gate or gates, bar or bars, where tolls shall be payable by virtue of any such Acts." It was admitted that the trustees had previously to the passing of the Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 126, taken and collected on the road the additional tolls granted by the said Act of 13 Geo. 3, c. 84. It was contended on behalf of the complainant that since the passing of the 3 Geo. 4, c. 126, the trustees are authorised to take in respect of carriages with wheels having the fellies of less breadth than 4 inches, onehalf more than the toll in respect of carriages having wheels of 6 inches breadth; that such toll was by the proviso in the local Act reduced from 3d. to 1d. per horse, and that the sum which the collector was authorised to take in respect of complainant's horse was 24d., being the 1d. and one-half more than the 1d., pursuant to the general Act of 3 Geo. +, c. 126, s. 7; and that the collector, having taken a larger sum, had rendered himself liable to convic tion. It was contended on behalf of the app. that the local Act 41 Geo. 3, gave a general toll of 3d. for every horse drawing any coach, &c., as therein in enumerated; that the proviso in the last-mentioned Act applied to any carriage with wheels having fellies of the breadth of 6 inches or more, drawn by not more than four horses, and to any carriage with wheels having fellies of the breadth of 9 inches or more, not deviating more than 1 inch from a flat or level surface, without limit as to the number of horses; that the 7th section 3 Geo. 4, c. 126, introduced a new graduated scale applicable to any waggon, wain, cart, or other such carriage, and regulated the toll according to the breadth of the wheels under 4 inches and 6 inches respectively, without reference to the number of horses drawing the same, whereas the proviso in the local Act was not We convicted him in a penalty of 2s. 6d. and costs 148. Wherefore he applied to us to state and sign a case setting forth the facts and the grounds of our determination for the opinion of the Court of Q. B. Prentice in support of the conviction. The app. contends that the Acts impose three times the amount of toll on narrow wheels that is imposed on broad wheels; but that is not so, it only imposes twice that amount. The usual method of imposing tolls was to put the original toll on the broad wheels and to increase the toll if the wheel was narrow; but the special Act in question reverses the usual order of things and places the original toll upon narrow wheels and diminishes it if the wheels are broad. Denmun, Q. C. (F. M. White with him), contra, contended that the course of legislation and the usual principles of construction showed that the app. was entitled to the judgment of the court. He cited Pickford v. Davis, 1 Bing. N. C. 141. is the essential point for the lowering of the toll, WIGHTMAN, J.-I think the breadth of the wheel and that therefore 3d. is the sum chargeable. CROMPTON, J.-I am of the same opinion. The contention is ingenious, but it is clear, on looking at the Acts, that the true meaning is that tolls should be double the amount on narrow wheels to what they are on broad-the justices, therefore, were right. C. B.] BROWNLOW v. THE METROPOLITAN BOArd of Works AND ANOTHER. c. 120, s. 135; 21 & 22 Vict. c. 104, ss. 2, 27, 28. Where the defts. carried a pipe connected with a sewer some distance into the river Thames, and protected the mouth of it by driving piles into the bed of the river, which piles damaged the plt.'s vessel: Held, that, as the defts. had not obtained the approval of the Board of Admiralty of the works in question as required by sect. 27 of 21 & 22 Vict. c. 104, they were hable in an action for obstructing the free navigation of the river, and that although sect. 2 of the same Act gave them power to erect works on the soil or bed of the river Thames, yet nevertheless it was a condition precedent to the erection of such works that they should obtain the approval of the Board of Admiralty, and that the approval of the Conservators of the Thames was not sufficient. This was an action tried before Williams, J., at Croydon, at the last summer assizes, when a verdict was found for plt., subject to several points reserved, the material one being, whether the defts. were justified in doing the acts complained of under certain Acts of Parliament. The action was brought against the Metropolitan Board of Works and John Aird, a contractor, to recover damages for injuries sustained by a ship, the property of the plt., owing to her striking against some piles which had been placed in the bed of the river Thames by Aird, the contractor, in the execution of some works which he was doing for the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the declaration alleged that the defts. had no right to execute the works complained of, and that even if they had they were executed negligently; to which the defts. pleaded not guilty and justification by statute 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, s. 135; and 21 & 22 Vict. c. 104, ss. 2, 27, 28, which are set out below. It appeared that an iron pipe connected with one of the main sewers, had, by order of the defts., been carried out some distance into the river, the extreme end of which was protected by a row of piles. The plt.'s ship, which was going down the river in charge of a pilot, having had an accident to part of her steerage, went aground at the spot where the piles were, and upon the falling of the tide settled upon them, which so damaged her bottom that she filled with water. It was proved that there was no mark or buoy to indicate the spot where the piles were, and also that the defts. had not obtained the approval of the Board of Admiralty of the works in question; but they had obtained the approval of the Conservators of the River Thames, which they (the defts.) contended was all they were bound to do under the statute. The sections of the statutes relied upon by the defts. were the following: By the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, s. 135 (the Local Management Act), after vesting the existing sewers in the Metropolitan Board of Works, it is provided that the board "shall make such sewers and works, and such diversions and alterations of any existing sewers or works vested in them under this Act, as they may from time to time think necessary for the effectual sewerage and drainage of the metropolis, and shall discontinue, close up, or destroy such sewers for the time being vested in them under this Act as they may deem unnecessary; and such board shall, from time to time, repair and maintain the sewers so vested in them, or such of them as may not be discontinued, closed up, or destroyed as aforesaid; and for the purposes aforesaid, such board shall have full power and authority to carry any such sewers or works through, across, or under any turnpike-road, or any street or place laid out as, or intended for a street, as well beyond as within the limits of the metropolis, or through or [C. B. under any cellar or vault under the carriage-way or pavement of any street, and into, through, or under any lands whatsoever within or beyond the said limits, making compensation for any damage done thereby, as hereinafter provided, and all sewers and works from time to time made by the said board shall vest in them." By the 21 & 22 Vict. c. 104 (the Main Drainage Act), s. 2, the Metropolitan Board of Works, for the purposes of this Act," may construct any works through, along over, or under the bed and soil and banks and shores of the river Thames, making compensation to all persons having any interest in any wharves, jetties" &c. By sect. 27, "No works upon the bed or shores of the said river Thames, below high-water mark, which may interfere with the navigation of that river, shall at any time be commenced or executed under the previsions of this Act, without the same having been previously approved of by the Lord High Admiral or the commissioners for executing the office of Lord Hig Admiral, such approval to be from time to time specified in writing under the hand of the Secretary to the Admiralty." By sect. 28, "In order to preserve the navigation of the river Thames, the plans of any walks to be con structed under the authority of this Act, upon the banks, bed, or shore of the river Thames, which may interfere with the free navigation of the said river, shall be approved by the Conservators of the River Thames in writing, signed by their secretary, before such works are commenced, certifying that the works, according to such plans, will not interfere with the navigation of the river Thames." A rule having been obtained on a former day, calling on the plt. to show cause why the verdict found for him should not be set aside and a new trial had on the ground that the obstruction complained of was justified under the statutes above set out, Bovill, Q.C. (Honyman with him) now showed cause, and cited Reg. v. Scott, 3 Q. B. 543; T Southampton and Hitchin Bridge Board of Works The Board of Health, 8 E. & Bl. 801; Ruck Williams, 3 H. & N. 308; Ellis v. The Sheffield Gas Consumers Company, 2. E. & Bl. 667; Hale v. The Sittingbourne Railway Company, 30 L. J. 81, Ex. M. Chambers, Q.C., Denman, Q.C., Mellish, Q.C Hawkins, Q.C. and Lloyd, in support of the rule, cited Metcalfe v. Hetherington, 11 Ex. 257; Reg. v. Betts, 16 Q. B. 1022. ERLE, C.J.-This is a rule to set aside the verdict that has been found for the plt., and to enter it for the defts. I think the rule ought to be discharged, the plt. undertaking to confine the verdict to the first count of the declaration, and to enter it for the defts. upon the second count upon the plea of not guilty. As to the first count of the declaration the complaint is of a damage done to a ship of the plt. by a set of piles driven into the bed of a navigable river, and that the piles were SO driven in as to be a material and dangerous obstruction in case any ship should in the course of navigating the river have to lie the bed upon of the river where those piles were. The damage that is done shows that they created a great danger, and were an actual obstruction of considerable magnitude to the navigation of the river Thames, which is a public highway, and therefore it was indictable act, or at least, if not an indictable act, it is the subject of an action for the special damage that has accrued by reason of the doing of the wrong. That part of the plt.'s case is sustained, and that brings the case to this point, contend that the act was justified by any of the statutes under which they claim to have proceeded? They say they have the great powers that were vested in the can the defts. BROWNLOW v. THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS AND ANOTHER. [C. B. upon the present occasion. I only advert to that to show that I think the intention of the Legislature was to restrict the powers under the 21 & 22 Vict. to drive piles into the Thames, provided the consent of the Admiralty had been obtained according to sect. 27 of their last Act. Those two Acts, thus being, by the 35th section, enacted to be read together, if piles expressly authorised by that last Act are driven into the bed of the river, or justified by that Act, though there was a condition precedent, that is, getting the sanction of the Board of Admiralty, which has not been fulfilled, the justification has failed; and it stands that a wrongful act, causing damage to the plt., has been done by the defts., who had no justification for it. C. B.] Commissioners of Sewers transferred to them (the Metropolitan Board of Works) by the 18 & 19 Vict., and that sect. 135 gives them very special powers in respect to the continuance or the alteration and change of places of the sewers that are brought within their jurisdiction; and in respect of the powers so given to them they may carry such sewers through, across, or under the streets and turnpikeroads, and even through cellars and vaults, and into, through, or under any lands whatsoever, making compensation for the damage done. But looking at the specific powers which are given in sect. 135, if it were necessary I should come to the conclusion that the Legislature did not intend to give them power to carry works out into the bed of the river Thames so as to obstruct the navigation of that highway, I do not WILLIAMS, J.—I am entirely of the same opinion, think it is an essential or a sure ground of the judg- upon the ground on which my Lord has put the case, ment to which I have come in this case, but it turns and I do not think it necessary to say anything with upon the point as far as I have understood that section; respect to the point discussed in the course of the arthere having been specified certain works for highways, gument. I entirely agree in what my Lord has said; and it having specified streams and lands, it seems to and, though this rule must be discharged, it must be me that they have cautiously abstained from specify- discharged upon the terms of the plt. consenting to Ping the bed of the river Thames, which was a most the verdict upon the second count being entered for the material matter for the sewers. But supposing that point defts. It is to my mind clear that the verdict ought to was not tenable, it seems to me that the last Act, the be so entered, because it appears from the evidence of P21 & 22 Vict. c. 104, being expressly enacted to be the Trinity-house pilot, who was called for the plt., Tread together with the Act of the 18 & 19 Vict., does that, by reason of the striking against the chains by constitute, if I may so say, one code of law in relation which the tier of vessels was fastened to the buoy or to the powers of the Metropolitan Board over the lighter, the machinery of the vessel became useless sewers, and the two Acts are to be read together; and and powerless, and the vessel herself became perfectly then can the defts. justify what they have done helpless, and it was not in the power of the pilot of by the aid of the 21 & 22 Vict. c. 104? In the vessel to resist the influence of the tide, or to 2. sect. 2 of that Act, the Legislature gives to the ground in any other spot than the exact spot where Metropolitan Board of Works, for the purposes of she did ground; she must have taken the ground this Act, powers to construct any work over there; the pilot could not have hindered it, and noor under the bed of the soil, the banks, and body could have hindered it, though they were shores of the river Thames; and it expressly gives perfectly aware that there were piles there and them powers to act upon the river Thames. And if that, if the vessel took ground there, they there was nothing more in the Act, it would seem must inevitably damage her bottom. That being that they would be justified in driving piles into so, it is obvious, assuming it was a duty on the the river Thames under that Act; but there is in the part of the defts., to give some indication of there Act, by sect. 27, a prohibition to use the powers given being danger below the water, their neglect of duty by the other parts of this Act, unless a condition was not the cause of the accident, seeing that the precedent is complied with, namely, unless they accident must have happened whether that duty had obtain the approval of the Admiralty for the works been neglected or performed. It seems perfectly clear within the bed of the river which they determine it cannot be said with justice that this accident was to carry on. But if there has been no approval caused by the neglect of duty, and therefore the verdict by the Board of Admiralty, the condition pre- upon the second count must be entered for the defts. cedent under which the justification by statute With respect to the argument, which I am not quite would be complete has not been performed, and clear was legitimately raised, as to these piles being an therefore defts. cannot justify under that statute. interference with the free navigation of the river: It seems to me that the contemplated approval first of all it was said, in the course of the argument, of the Admiralty is a very essential power that in truth this vessel was not navigating the river to be always regarded in respect of keeping in usual course. I do not understand that. It may clear of the navigation of the river Thames, be that it was rather an unusual thing, or very unusual, because in the Thames Conservancy Act, 20 & 21 for a vessel to go along that part of the river under Vict., the extensive powers of the conservators are which these piles lay. No doubt the vessel would not recognised by sect. 54: "It shall not be lawful for have gone there, but she was taken there by stress of any person to make any embankment or drive any circumstances. But then one of the great and benepiles into the bed of the river Thames without ficial features in the character of that noble river is, the permission of the conservators." The statute that her bottom is so free from injurious substances, does not contemplate that the conservators should that a ship may take the ground anywhere in perfect get powers to authorise it; it must be un- safety. It was clear from the evidence of all the lawful unless there is the authority of the conser- witnesses who knew anything about the case, that if vators. But sect. 105 contemplates a concurrent it had not been for the piles, she would have grounded authority in the Board of Admiralty, because it says, where she did ground with perfect safety, and the only in sect. 105 of the Thames Conservancy Act, "no damage that she would have experienced would have works in the bed of the river Thames below high-water been the loss of a tide. It seems a fact in this mark shall at any time be commenced or executed case, that had the piles not been there, the under the direction of the conservators without the vessel would have lost only a tide. If that same having been approved of by the Board be so, it is a proof that she could not naviof Admiralty." Therefore, as far as the con- gate the river in the way she was entitled to servators and the justification under them is con- navigate it, and therefore the erection of these cerned, they could not authorise it and give a piles did interfere with the free navigation of the valid authority without the approval of the river. I entirely agree with my Lord as to the conBoard of Admiralty for such works as were done struction of the statutes, and I do not think it ས་ ཞ ། ་ ས བ ་ C. B.] HARWOOD v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. right to go over the ground again and repeat the reasons on which I think the rule should be discharged. [Ex. CH. of a temporary right to use the barge does not interfere with the plt.'s right of action. It is true that trover would not lie; but Tancred v. Allgood shows, by implication at least, that the owner has a right action for a permanent injury; for the ground an which that case was decided in favour of the deft. wa that the injury done was not permanent. There is a strong analogy between the owner of a chattel, whet has been temporarily let to a third party, and the reversioner of real property. Here Mr. Scott Russel claims under the plt.; and the defts., who were enployed by him to unload the barge, and did that work negligently, cannot be considered as strangers. Ta make the case of Blakemore v. Bristol and Extr Railway Company at all analogous, we must suppor Harvey to have been the person injured instead e Blakemore. WILLES, J.-I am of the same opinion. With respect to the second count, that was disposed of in the remarks already made, and the plt. must abandon it. It is not necessary to add to that, because it may deprive the plt. of costs, because he has succeeded upon the point, and disproved the liability. With respect to the first count, that depended on the injury to the plt.'s vessel, in consequence of the board of works, through their contractor, having placed a nuisance in the bed of the river. I own I think it perfectly clear that both the Metropolitan Board and the contractor are liable; of course the latter is liable if the former had no authority to direct him to make the work; the former is liable if the work they directed him to make so involved an obstruction of the navigation of the river. WILLIAMS, J.-I am of the same opinion. And I should take the question in this way; put admitted by the pleadings that the wrongful act of tis the two Acts together, and consider the 135th sec-defts. has caused a permanent injury to the propert tion of the first Act and sect. 2 of the second Act as forming part of one entire Act. Then you have a section which confers general powers not mentioning the Thames at all, and a section which confers special powers with reference to the Thames; and of course, in considering what are the powers of the board with reference to the Thames, you look only to the special section. But the powers conferred by the special section are by sect. 27 not to be exercised without the approval of the Board of Admiralty, and as that has not been obtained, the defts. have put upon the bed of the river Thames, without authority, that which is a public nuisance. By that public nuisance the plt.'s vessel had her bottom injured, and they are therefore liable in this action. KEATING, J.-I am of the same opinion. I entirely agree that the construction to be put on this Act of Parliament is that stated by my Lord, and I have not anything to add. Rule discharged. Where the plt. let a barge to another, and, during the This was an action against the railway company for damages done to a barge belonging to the plt., but which was let to Scott Russell. The injury was caused by a crane belonging to the railway company giving way, by reason of which a heavy boiler which it was raising fell on to the barge. The declaration was demurred to, on the ground that the plt. had no such interest in the barge as would entitle him to maintain the action. Millward, in support of the demurrer, cited Blakemore v. The Bristol and Exeter Railway Company, 8 E. & Bl. 1035; and The Lancashire Waggon Company v. Fitzhugh, 3 L. T. Rep. N. S. 703. WILLIAMS, J. referred to Tancred v. Allgood, 28 L. J. 363, Ex. Petersdorff, Serjt., contra, was not called on. ERLE, C. J.-This was an action by the owner of a barge to recover compensation for damage done to her by the defts. while she was in the hands of a third party, who had hired her from the plt. The question is, whether the owner has a right to maintain the action. In my opinion he has. The inere outstanding of the plt. That property was subject to a temporary incumbrance of being let out to a third party, but, ject to that incumbrance, it is still the property of t plt. and has been injured. In the case of a gratuitam bailment, either the owner or the possessor may b an action of trover. The present hiring is not stric a lease, because that term is not applicable to a che tel; still, where a chattel has been let on hire, the owner cannot maintain trover, because he has para with the rightful possession; but, with respect to s quasi reversionary right, he may maintain an action on the case for an injury done to the chattel affecting that right. Of course, if the injury done is not p manent, he cannot do so; but, on these pleadings, ità admitted that the injury is permanent, and be therefore maintain his action. Judgment for the på. EXCHEQUER CHAMBER. Reported by C. J. B. HERTSLET, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH. (Before POLLOCK, C. B., WILLIAMS and WILLES, √, Patent-Infringement-Novelty-User. Letters patent were granted for an alleged invention of fishes and fish-joints for connecting the ends of railway rails; they were made of iron, with i groove in the outer surface, for the purpose preventing the square heads of the bolts passing through them, and the rail from turning round; and also for the purpose of procuring greate strength with an equal weight of metal than woul have been obtained from a fish of the same thick throughout. Before the letters patent were granted, grooved iron with bolts had been used for the p pose of fastening timbers placed vertically upon another, or placed horizontally side by side; and o channelled plate which had been used for t purpose of supporting the flooring of a brist, and which ran longitudinally the whole leg of the bridge, was also used for the purp of fishing a scarf joint where the ends of the t timbers met together, but it was not used either s a view of fixing the heads of the bolts, or of obtaining greater strength with an equal weight of metal: Held (reversing the judgment of the Court below), this the use of grooves in pieces of iron for holding materials together by means of bolts and nuts had Ex. CH.] HARWOOD v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. been given to the world, together with all its advantages, before the date of plt.'s patent; that plt.'s alleged invention was a new application of an old contrivance in the old way to an analogous subject, without any novelty or invention in the mode of applying such old contrivance to the new purpose, and that such application was not a valid subjectmatter of a patent. This was an appeal by the defts. under the C. L. P. A. 1854 against a decision of the Q. B. in discharging a rule of that Court obtained by the defts. calling on the plts. to show cause why a verdict should not be entered for the defts. upon a point reserved at the trial, and also why a new trial should not be had on the ground of misdirection. The plts. are the executors of the last will of the late Charles Heard Wild. The declaration alleged that Charles H. Wild was the true and first inventor of a certain new manufacture, that is to say, improvements in fishes and fish joints for connecting the rails of railways; that letters patent had been granted to him, and that the defts. had infringed the same. [Ex. CH. a quarter of an inch below the surface, and the bolts were made with square heads so as to fit into these recesses. The object of having the bolts with square necks fitting into square holes, and in having the bolts with square heads fitting into recesses was to prevent the bolts from turning round when the nuts were being screwed on or off, and this object was effectually accomplished by each of these contrivances. But until the time of the patent of the said C. H. Wild, fishes for connecting the rails of railways had never been made with a groove or recess in their outer or lateral surfaces so as to receive the square heads of the bolts, and at the same time to render the fish lighter for equal strength, or stronger for an equal weight of metal than a fish made of equal thickness throughout. It was also proved that before the date of the letters patent, in the construction of several timber bridges of and over one or two lines of railway constructed under the superintendence of the late Mr. Brunel, beams of timber had been laid horizontally one above the other, and fastened or bolted together with bolts and nuts; that horizontal bars or plates of iron were placed beneath and parallel to and in contact with the horizontal beams, and were also fastened or bolted by the same bolts and nuts, and that each of these bars or plates of iron was constructed with a groove in its under surface, which received the square or hexagonal heads of the bolts. It further appeared that this mode of construction was adopted in order to effect, and did effect, the double purpose of strength and of preventing the heads of these bolts from turning round. But in these bridges there were not joints to be fished by the bars or plates of iron, nor were there corresponding bars or plates of iron above the horizontal beains; there was therefore no fishing in the proper sense of the word. Upon this evidence relating to the bridges, the defts. contended that the use of grooved iron as above mentioned for the double purpose of preBy letters patent, dated the 16th March 1853, the venting the heads of the bolts from turning round and sole privilege was granted to Charles Heard Wild, his of giving increased strength, having existed publicly prior executors, administrators and assigns, of making, to the date of the letters patent, the invention of the using, exercising, and vending within the United said C. H. Wild being only an application of the same Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Channel contrivance as that above mentioned to fishing iron Islands and Isle of Man, an invention for "improve- rails of railways, was not the subject of a patent. The ments in fishes and fish joints for connecting the rails Lord Chief Justice ruled that, notwithstanding this of railways," for the term of fourteen years from the evidence, the said invention was or might be the subsaid 16th March 1853, upon the usual conditions.ject of a patent, but he reserved leave to the defts. on In pursuance of the condition of the said letters patent, a specification was afterwards duly filed by the said Charles Heard Wild in the Great Seal Patent-office, a copy of which formed part of the The defts. pleaded:-1. Not guilty. 2. That Charles H. Wild was not the first and true inventor. 3. That he did not cause a specification to be filed particularly describing and ascertaining his invention. 4. That the supposed invention was not at the time of granting the alleged letters patent new as to the public use and exercise thereof. 5. That the said alleged letters patent were not for the sole working or making of any manner of manufacture within the realm, according to the true intent of the statutes in such case made and provided. Issues joined thereon. Upon the trial at Westminster, before Cockburn, C.J. and a special jury, at the sittings at Westminster Ser Michaelmas term 1859, the following facts and circumstances were proved or admitted: -case. It was admitted by the defts. that if the patent of the said Charles Heard Wild be could sustained the invention patented was useful, and that defts. had infringed the patent. the foregoing evidence to move the Court of Q. B. to enter a verdict for them if the Court should be of opinion upon such evidence that the said invention was not the subject of patent. The defts. further proved that in the year 1847 a certain timber bridge, known as the "Hackney Bridge," had been constructed by the late Mr. Brunel for carrying the South Devon Railway over the Teign Canal. The span of this bridge It was proved that before the date of the letters was too great to be conveniently crossed by any patent the rails of the railways had been commonly single beam, and the bridge was constructed so as and publicly connected by fishes and fish joints, to have upon each side two horizontal longitudinal pieces of iron being attached to each side of the rail beams of timber, the ends of which met and were at the joints by means of bolts and nuts as mentioned joined together in the middle of the bridge by scarf by the said C. H. Wild at the commencement of his joints. Beneath these beams were placed transverse provisional specification. In some cases flat fishes had planks which extended from side to side of the bridge been used, which were placed one on each side and constituted the flooring or roadway of the bridge, of the rail, and were attached by means of round and immediately beneath the ends of the transverse bolts passing through round holes in the fishes, and planks were longitudinal bars of grooved iron one upon having round or cup-shaped heads and nuts. When each side of the bridge running parallel to and under this mode of construction was adopted it was necessary the longitudinal beams along the whole length of the that the heads of the bolts should be held by a spanner bridge with the grooves or channels downwards. Bolts or some other separate instrument while the nuts were with square heads passed through the grooved iron being screwed on and off. In other cases the fishes bars, transverse planking and the longitudinal beams; were flat, but the holes in one of the pair of fishes that is to say, from the lower to the upper side were square instead of being round, and the bolts of the bridge, the square heads of the bolts were made with square necks under the head so as to fit the square holes; and in other cases one of the pair of fishes was cast with square recesses sunk about resting in the grooves of the iron bars and being prevented, or intended to be prevented, from turning round within the grooves, and the nuts were |