"forward or back whil "Now the "wheel gro sideways about the centre the pivot pins, so that by moving the - to more in aur direction - of the intersection of the ares up or down or 19 20 21 as may be desired and that by moving it about its pin 24 it lever about its pins 26 it can be made to engage with either of the tongues can be caused to move the bar 19, 20 or 21 thus engaged in a direction 5 The free end of the lever 23 passes through a fixed guide "parallel to the shaft 17 so as to carry the corresponding gear wheel into or or sector plate 27 shown developed in Fig. 6 and having three horizontal "slots corresponding to the three speeds and all connected by a central vertical "opening. These slots being marked with their respective speeds indicate to 10 "the driver the position to which the lever must be raised or lowered for "travel to be given to the lever in putting the change wheels in and out of gear. "giving the speed he desires. The slots also limit the direction and quantity of "The jaws of the casting 25 are formed with recesses 25* so that when the "lever is engaged with the tongue 21a, the tongues 20 and 19a will be engaged 15 "in the recesses of the upper and lower jaws respectively. If the lever "handle be depressed so as to bring the fork into engagement with the tongue 20a, both the tongues 19a and 21a will be engaged in the recess of "the lower jaw; or vice versa. This arrangement forms a locking device for 66 Stroud v. Humber Ld. "the bars 19", 20 and 21* and prevents them moving from the proper central "position when not engaged by the lever 23, which itself forms the locking "device for the tongue which happens to be engaged thereby." The Defendants admitted at the trial that if the Patent was valid they had 5 infringed. It is therefore unnecessary to give a Drawing of the Defendants' form of gear in this Report. The action came on for trial on the 5th of December 1906 before Mr. Justice PARKER. T. Terrell K.C. and Martelli (instructed by Buxton, Ashton & Son) appeared 10 for the Plaintiff; Walter K.C. and Christopher James (instructed by E. and J. Mote) appeared for the Defendants. Terrell K.C. opened the Plaintiff's case.-The Claim is strictly limited to the part e in the change speed gear-to the particular device, which is cheap and solid, and can be applied to any motor car. There are many other devices for the 15 purpose, but the Plaintiff's has been remarkably successful. Before April 1905 the Plaintiff bought from the Defendants a motor car which was defective because of "jarring-out," and he devised the patented method for curing the defect and explained it to the Defendants. Later, he found that they were not only making it for him but were applying it to other cars. The Defendants 20 then said that the device that they were using was not the same as the Plaintiff's, or an infringement. Of the anticipations, Maybach is the nearest, but the bridge-piece in that has no place in the working, whereas the function of the U-piece in the Plaintiff's device is to lock. The locking in Maybach is effected by the rod underneath. In the Plaintiff's device the locking and the movement 25 are conveyed by the same notch. The mechanical result is the same, but the mechanism is different. Evidence was given in support of the Plaintiff's case. Colonel R. E. B. Crompton said that in Maybach's device the forked piece rocked, but in the Plaintiff's the U-piece did not. A large proportion of the cars in the Exhibition 30 at Olympia in 1906 had the Plaintiff's device. That device was only applicable to the "Mercédès" type of car—a type having a gear box in which the change speed wheels were moved by two or more independent rods. James and Hornsby was a "Mercédès" type of gear, but was much more complicated than the Plaintiff's, and in it, in order to get sufficient stiffness, it was necessary to 35 prolong out at the end the bearings corresponding to 14 in the Plaintiff's Drawing, and to make the operating part with teeth, whereas in the Plaintiff's there was only one tooth. James and Hornsby's device would be more easily jammed, and it was more costly. In Maybach the teeth on the operating arm could not be replaced by one tooth without material alteration of the arrange40 ment of the parts, and the rectangular rod sliding in the groove would have to be more carefully fitted than the round rod of the Plaintiff's mechanism, and would be more easily jammed. Maybach's was more difficult to make, and in consequence was not much used. Greig's device, as shown in Fig. 5, was for use on a traction engine, and was generally horizontal. It would require inven45 tion to adapt it to a motor car. Greig had push rods, but not the end slide. His device has been abandoned on the " Martini " car in favour of the Plaintiff's; it could only be used on cars built specially to take it. In James and Hornsby each side had to be supported separately, and the arms on the two sides of the operating mechanism were two separate independent parts moved separately 50 and independently, and had to be arrested in their movement by two separate attachments, whereas in the Plaintiff's the fastening was only needed at the part marked 12. In James and Hornsby the method of carrying the weight was an element of weakness, and the device could not work for any length of time. Maybach was not merely structurally, but functionally different from 55 the Plaintiff's device. In the latter the part e moved independently of f; in Greig's device the corresponding parts moved together, and a sliding movement was preferable to rotation, because the push rods could not be placed vertically Stroud v. Humber Ld. "free to move in any direction up or down or sideways about the centre "of the intersection of the axes of the pivot pins, so that by moving the "lever about its pins 26 it can be made to engage with either of the tongues "19, 20, 21a as may be desired and that by moving it about its pin 24 it "can be caused to move the bar 19, 20 or 21 thus engaged in a direction 5 "parallel to the shaft 17 so as to carry the corresponding gear wheel into or "out of engagement. The free end of the lever 23 passes through a fixed guide "or sector plate 27 shown developed in Fig. 6 and having three horizontal "slots corresponding to the three speeds and all connected by a central vertical "opening. These slots being marked with their respective speeds indicate to 10 "the driver the position to which the lever must be raised or lowered for "giving the speed he desires. The slots also limit the direction and quantity of "travel to be given to the lever in putting the change wheels in and out of gear. "The jaws of the casting 25 are formed with recesses 25* so that when the "lever is engaged with the tongue 21a, the tongues 20 and 19a will be engaged 15 "in the recesses of the upper and lower jaws respectively. If the lever "handle be depressed so as to bring the fork into engagement with the tongue 20a, both the tongues 19 and 21a will be engaged in the recess of "the lower jaw; or vice versa. This arrangement forms a locking device for 66 Stroud v. Humber Ld. "the bars 19*, 20* and 21* and prevents them moving from the proper central "position when not engaged by the lever 23, which itself forms the locking "device for the tongue which happens to be engaged thereby." The Defendants admitted at the trial that if the Patent was valid they had 5 infringed. It is therefore unnecessary to give a Drawing of the Defendants' form of gear in this Report. The action came on for trial on the 5th of December 1906 before Mr. Justice PARKER. T. Terrell K.C. and Martelli (instructed by Buxton, Ashton & Son) appeared 10 for the Plaintiff; Walter K.C. and Christopher James (instructed by E. and J. Mote) appeared for the Defendants. Terrell K.C. opened the Plaintiff's case.-The Claim is strictly limited to the part e in the change speed gear-to the particular device, which is cheap and solid, and can be applied to any motor car. There are many other devices for the 15 purpose, but the Plaintiff's has been remarkably successful. Before April 1905 the Plaintiff bought from the Defendants a motor car which was defective because of "jarring-out," and he devised the patented method for curing the defect and explained it to the Defendants. Later, he found that they were not only making it for him but were applying it to other cars. The Defendants 20 then said that the device that they were using was not the same as the Plaintiff's, or an infringement. Of the anticipations, Maybach is the nearest, but the bridge-piece in that has no place in the working, whereas the function of the U-piece in the Plaintiff's device is to lock. The locking in Maybach is effected by the rod underneath. In the Plaintiff's device the locking and the movement 25 are conveyed by the same notch. The mechanical result is the same, but the mechanism is different. Evidence was given in support of the Plaintiff's case. Colonel R. E. B. Crompton said that in Maybach's device the forked piece rocked, but in the Plaintiff's the U-piece did not. A large proportion of the cars in the Exhibition 30 at Olympia in 1906 had the Plaintiff's device. That device was only applicable to the "Mercédès" type of car-a type having a gear box in which the change speed wheels were moved by two or more independent rods. James and Hornsby was a "Mercédès " type of gear, but was much more complicated than the Plaintiff's, and in it, in order to get sufficient stiffness, it was necessary to 35 prolong out at the end the bearings corresponding to 14 in the Plaintiff's Drawing, and to make the operating part with teeth, whereas in the Plaintiff's there was only one tooth. James and Hornsby's device would be more easily jammed, and it was more costly. In Maybach the teeth on the operating arm could not be replaced by one tooth without material alteration of the arrange40 ment of the parts, and the rectangular rod sliding in the groove would have to be more carefully fitted than the round rod of the Plaintiff's mechanism, and would be more easily jammed. Maybach's was more difficult to make, and in consequence was not much used. Greig's device, as shown in Fig. 5, was for use on a traction engine, and was generally horizontal. It would require inven45 tion to adapt it to a motor car. Greig had push rods, but not the end slide. His device has been abandoned on the "Martini" car in favour of the Plaintiff's; it could only be used on cars built specially to take it. In James and Hornsby each side had to be supported separately, and the arms on the two sides of the operating mechanism were two separate independent parts moved separately 50 and independently, and had to be arrested in their movement by two separate attachments, whereas in the Plaintiff's the fastening was only needed at the part marked 12. In James and Hornsby the method of carrying the weight was an element of weakness, and the device could not work for any length of time. Maybach was not merely structurally, but functionally different from 55 the Plaintiff's device. In the latter the part e moved independently of ƒ; in Greig's device the corresponding parts moved together, and a sliding movement was preferable to rotation, because the push rods could not be placed vertically Stroud v. Humber Ld. underneath the operating lever and it was necessary to have two sets of push rods connected by levers or other means to work Greig's device, which would not be applicable to all "Mercédès " types of car without much modification. J. Swinburne said that the invention consisted in adding the locking piece e to the mechanism. It was a simple, convenient and inexpensive way of getting 5 the locking effect, and to devise it ingenuity would be required. The mechanism of James and Hornsby effected the same object, but was not so good mechanically; it was more difficult to make, and was not suitable for working in a motor car. If the gate plate was taken off there would be nothing to prevent one getting the mechanism wrong; that was not so in the Plaintiff's device. 10 Maybach solved the problem in a different way from the Plaintiff and was more complicated. Instead of having the peg following the same grooves at the end of the lever, it had the key on the other side of the rods. That involved an alteration of the bars, whereas, in the Plaintiff's device, the key mechanism worked in the old notches, and was simply an addition to the existing 15 mechanism. The essential difference between Greig and the Plaintiff's device was that the locking part rocked, instead of sliding. The lever was placed horizontally, which would not be suitable for a motor car, and if the lever were turned up vertically it would come in the wrong place. James and Hornsby's device was a " Mercédès" type of gear, in that there was a gear box in which 20 the shifting mechanism was connected with rods that independently came out of the gear box. There was a distinction between it and the Plaintiff's device in that, by its mechanism, one was limited to a short length between the centre of the axle S' and the racks. It would require invention to go from that to the Plaintiff's device; the parts Y', Y' would have to be connected, and other 25 substantial alterations would have to be made; the idea of the bridge piece was old. The problem was to get bolts that worked in notches connected without fouling the frame. The Plaintiff's was a more robust mechanism than Maybach's. In Greig the gate could be removed, and the lever bent and brought out to the side of the car, but it would not be a good working device. The locking device 30 in itself was very like the Plaintiff's. The Plaintiff was called, and stated that in February 1905 he ordered a car from the Defendants, and when he saw it at their works he noticed a defect in the operation of the push rods, and he devised a remedy. In July he gave the Defendant's manager, Mr. Pullinger, a description of his device, and the 35 Defendants put it on his car. [The witness was cross-examined as to the idea he had had when he applied for Provisional Protection.] [Terrell K.C. -Except to prove disconformity, the Provisional Specification cannot be used to construe the Complete Specification.] [Walter K.C.-One of the Defendants' points is that the Plaintiff was not the true and first inventor.] [Terrell K.C. 40 In that case the Defendants ought to state who it is that they allege to have been the true and first inventor.] The Plaintiff stated that he offered to give drawings to the Defendants, but they did not have them, or the model he made. [Terrell K.C.-The Defendants are not entitled to put questions directed to showing that the Defendants had made the invention, in the absence of an 45 allegation to that effect in the Particulars of Objections (Russell v. Ledsam, 11 M. & W. 647). The issue of the true and first inventor is not on the Plaintiffs; a mistake has often been made as to that; a plaintiff produces his Patent, and his grant is good until it is invalidated, and the burden of proof of invalidity is upon the defendant.] [PARKER J.-When the issue is raised is it 50 not the general practice to apply for Further Particulars?] [Terrell K.C.-No; you are not entitled to give evidence unless you have given Particulars.] [Walter K.C.-In the Letters Patent it is recited that the grantee is the true and first inventor. The Plaintiff has gone into the witness box, and the Defendants are enabled to establish their plea from the mouth of the grantee himself. If 55 the representation is not true the Crown was deceived and the grant is invalid.] [Terrell K.C.--Russell v. Ledsam was before the Act of 1883; if it had been |