Davies v. Davies' Patent Boiler Ld.

matter, and so there was no expert evidence called on behalf of the Defendants; in fact all that was really relied upon as showing that one was an improvement on the other was a letter of the 18th June 1907 in which the Plaintiff said, writing to the Defendant Company-"In connection with the "present tenders "-it appears from the correspondence that there was a tender 5 then being made for a boiler at Eastbourne-"it would in my opinion be "a great improvement if the mud drum, fide flues, and baffles, which are "part of my new invention were introduced into the old boiler." But that does not make his invention, because it can be adapted to the old type of boiler, an improvement on the old invention. It is not a question of balancing the 10 evidence, because the evidence is all one way. On these grounds I think the invention, the subject of the 1907 Patent, is not an improvement upon the 1903 Patent, but a separate and distinct invention; and it does not come within the language of the Agreement as an improvement. [The learned Judge then dealt with the question at what date the invention of 1907 was made, and 15 found as a fact that the 1907 Patent was not an improvement upon the 1903 Patent, and that the entire invention was made subsequent to the 14th of November 1906 when the employment ceased, and continued]: The result is that the Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that he is entitled to the Letters Patent No. 903 of 1907 free from all claims on behalf of the Defendant 20 Company, and that the Defendants are not entitled to any interest in any invention in relation to boilers or boiler tubes made by the Plaintiff since the 14th of November 1906, and to an injunction as to that. The Defendants must pay the costs of the action, and the Counterclaim must be dismissed with costs.

25

END OF VOLUME XXV.