HARWOOD

[1860.] rivets, and having projecting wings firmly secured to and resting upon the sleepers or bearers, so as to support the rails by their sides and upper flanges, in manner hereinbefore described. Fifthly, the constructing fish

V.

GREAT NORTHERN Railway Company.

joints for connecting the rails of railways with rails and fishes, having the touching surfaces of one or both of them planed as hereinbefore described."

A model was produced shewing two rails of a railway connected by fish-joints according to the patent.

It was admitted by the defendants that if the patent of Wild could be sustained the invention patented was useful, and that they had infringed the patent.

It was proved that before the date of the letters patent the rails of railways had been commonly and publicly connected by fishes and fish joints, pieces of iron being attached to each side of the rail at the joints by means of bolts and nuts, as mentioned by Wild at the commencement of his provisional specification. In some cases flat fishes had been used, which were placed one on each side of the rail, and were attached by means of round bolts passing through round holes in the fishes, and having round or cup-shaped heads and nuts. When this mode of construction was adopted, it was necessary that the heads of the bolts should be held by a spanner, or some other separate instrument, while the nuts were being screwed on and off. In other cases the fishes were flat, but the holes in one of the pair of fishes were square, instead of being round, and 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 a quarter of an inch below the surface, and the bolts were made with square heads, so as to fit into these recesses.

Models shewing two rails of a railway connected by

fishes and fish-joints of the three descriptions above mentioned were produced.

The object of having the bolts with square necks fitting into square holes, as shewn in one of these models, and in having the bolts with square heads fitting into recesses, as shewn in another of them, 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 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.

s;

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, as shewn on the models. 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

[1860.]

HARWOOD

V.

GREAT NORTHERN

Railway Company.

[1860.]

HARWOOD

V.

GREAT NORTHERN Railway Company.

not joints to be fished by the bars or plates of iron, nor were there corresponding bars or plates of iron above the horizontal beams; there was therefore no fishing in the proper sense of the word.

Upon this evidence relating to the bridges, the defendants contended that the use of grooved iron, as above mentioned, for the double purpose of giving increased strength and of preventing the heads of the bolts from turning round, having existed publicly prior to the date of the letters patent, the invention of C. H. Wild being only an application of the same contrivance to fishing iron rails of railways, was not the subject of a patent.

The Lord Chief Justice ruled that, notwithstanding this evidence, the invention might be the subject of a patent; but he reserved leave to the defendants to move to enter the verdict for them, if the Court should be of a different opinion.

The defendants further proved that in the year 1847 a certain timber bridge, known as the "Hackney Bridge," had been constructed by the late Isambard Kingdon Brunel, for carrying the South Devon Railway over the Teign Canal. The span of this bridge was too great to be conveniently crossed by any single beam, and the bridge was constructed so as to have upon each side two horizontal longitudinal beams of timber, the ends of which met and were joined together, in the middle of the bridge, by scarf-joints. Beneath these beams were placed transverse planks, which extended from side to side of the bridge and constituted the flooring or roadway of the bridge, and immediately beneath the transverse planks were longitudinal bars of grooved iron, one upon cach side of the bridge, running parallel to and under the longitudinal beams along the whole length of

the bridge, with the grooves or channels downward. Bolts with square heads, as shewn by the models, passed through the grooved iron bars, transverse planking and the longitudinal beams, that is to say, from the lower to the upper side of the bridge, the square heads of the bolts 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 screwed on to the upper ends of the bolts, as shewn by the model. The grooved iron was carried under each of the scarfjoints, in the same manner as under the other portions of the beams; and above and immediately over each scarf-joint, extending for a distance of about 18 inches beyond each end of the joint, and resting immediately upon the longitudinal beam, was a horizontal flat plate of iron 13 feet in length, through which the bolts above described also passed at that portion of the bridge.

The bars of iron along the under side of the bridge were so constructed and used with a groove, for the double purpose of receiving the square heads of the bolts and preventing them from turning round, and of rendering the bars of iron lighter for equal strength, or stronger for equal weight of metal, and the bars, as so constructed, effectually accomplished this double pur

pose.

Models were produced, which shewed the modes of the construction adopted in this bridge.

In answer to questions put to them by the Lord Chief Justice, the jury found:

First, that the channelled irons upon the railway bridges, independently of the single instance of the Hackney Bridge, were used before Wild's patent for the double

[1860.]

HARWOOD

V.

GREAT NORTHERN Railway Company.

[1860.]

HARWOOD

V.

GREAT NORTHERN Railway Company.

purpose of obtaining increased strength and preventing the bolt-heads from turning round, but that they were not used for the purpose of fishing.

Secondly, that the fastening of the scarf-joint of the longitudinal beam at the Hackney Bridge was a fishing of that joint, but that the use of the channelled iron as one of the plates of the fish arose from its being already there for the purpose of fastening the beams and the iron together, and was not adopted by Mr. Brunel with reference to or in contemplation of the special advantages in fishing contemplated by Wild's patent (a).

Upon that finding, the Lord Chief Justice directed a verdict to be entered for the plaintiffs. In Hilary Term, 1861,

Bovill obtained a rule to enter a verdict for the defendants in pursuance of the leave reserved, on the ground of the invention not being the subject of a patent, by reason of the previous use of grooved iron in the timber bridges (other than the Hackney Bridge), for the double purpose of obtaining increased strength for the same weight of metal, and of preventing the boltheads from turning round; or for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection with respect to the application and use of the grooved iron in the Hackney Bridge.

Knowles shewed cause (Grove, Hindmarch and T. Webster, who were with him, were not called upon).- First, Wild's improvements in fishes and fish-joints for connecting the rails of railways are the subject of a patent. His invention

(a) On the argument of the case in the Exchequer Chamber, the case on which the appeal was heard was amended by consent, this clause being substituted for another by the Lord Chief Justice from his notes.