Thomas v Tillie & Henderson

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 11 May 1866
• Date: 11 May 1866
• Court: Court of Common Pleas (Ireland)

Common Pleas.

THOMAS

and

TILLIE & HENDERSON.

COMMON LAW REPORTS. 783 E. T. 1866. CommonPleas. THOMAS v. TILLIE & HENDERSON. May 11. Tins was a motion for liberty to exhibit certain interrogatories Common Law Procedure Act to the defendants. The plaintiff was Mr. W. T. Thomas of Lon- 1856, ss. 56-7. Form and ex don, patentee and manufacturer of sewing machines; and the action tent of interroÂÂwas brought for an alleged infringement of his patent right by mg a at yo be es ewhichxh - the defendants, who are shirt and collar manufacturers in London- fbeinteddantto i a d n an n derry. The motion was made before any defence was filed, and action for the infringement was not on notice. It was grounded upon the joint affidavit of of letters pa tent, before the plaintiff and Mr. Robert Campbell Lee, of 'the firm of Messrs. plea pleaded. Such motions Anderson & Lee, his attorneys in the case, which stated that need not, in this Court, be an action had been brought by the plaintiff, and was then pending upon notice. in this Court, for the infringement of certain letters patent granted to the plaintiff for the term of fourteen years from the 27th of April 1853, for the sole privilege to make, use, exercise, and vend, within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man, his said invention for improvements in the apparatus for sewing and stitching ; that machines made by him under the said letters patent had gained great repute, and very large numbers of them had been, and still continued to be sold ; and the trade in them had become so valuable that an orÂÂganised system of infringement had been established, chiefly by small makers, who, having obtained possession of one of his maÂÂchines, made castings of it, and supplied manufacturers with machines, much below his ordinary price ; and some of these persons had, together with their customers, formed an association for reÂÂsisting any proceedings which might be brought against them. That the defendant had, as plaintiff had been informed and bee. lieved, made or used, or caused to be made or used, sewing machines, in exact imitation of those made and sold by him, conÂÂstructed according to the letters patent before referred to ; and both the'said deponents stated that they believed that the plaintiff 784 COMMON LAW REPORTS. would derive material benefit in this cause from the discovery which was sought by requiring the defendant to answer the annexed...