OCR Text |
Show r sTt'LSwfcaeAe INTER-MOUNTAI- N MINING REVIEW. rule, and no proper explanation of the pro- - the patent in question encroached on the portions of the quantity of cyanogen to the rights of the true and first inventors of the The suit known as the Great Cyanide Case, precious metal. invention patented as stated in the summons, in which Mr. James Hay, in his capacity of 7. That the plaintiff would make use of and that such patent was subsequently can-thchairman of the Chamber of Mines, was the patents, books, papers, pamphlets, etc., celled in accordance with Article 30, Law 6, plaintiff, and the African Gold Recovery therein set forth, which included the specifi- - 1SS7, in the case of MacArthur, Forrest and company were the defendants, was com- cation of the patents issued by J. II. Rae in Forrest vs. Wernher Siemens, by an order menced at Pretoria, before Chief Justice America in 1S67 and 1 SS7 t collect gold of the High Court. and Justices Jorlssen and Morice, on Monday, from Advocate Wessels, for plaintiff, then sweepings, and an apparatus to treat February 17th. quicksilver, and one issued in the dressed the Court. He read the summons The interests at stake being vast and wide- same country in 1SS5 to Jerome W. Simp- - which set out in full the cause of the action spread, there was an impressive legal array. son for improvements in the process of ex- - Then ho read the specification of the patent, The pleading set forth: First, in connec tracting gold, silver, and copper out of their He drew attention particularly to that tion with Patent No. 47. ores. tion of the third par, where it says: In That on the 2Sth September, iSSS, The plaintiff said further that the alleged practice we find the best results are obtained John discovery was in use in this State before it from a weak solution, or a solution contain-wa- s patent No. 47 was issued Stewart MacArthur, Robert Wardrop Forpatented by the said MacArthur, For- - ing an extremely small quantity of cyanogen rest and William Forrest, and confirmed on rest and Forrest, and by one Henry Forbes or a cyanide, such weak solution having a the 2Sth November, 18SS. Julian, on the following properties, among selective action, such as to dissolve gold and Then 2. That the final specification was set others, on the Witwatersrand goldfields: silver in preference to baser metals. forth in patent No. 47, attached to the sum- The Pioneer G. M. Co., Ltd, towards the he referred to the part of the patent which mons. end of 8S7, and at the Roodepoort United spoke of the way gold was recovered: or nearly all, the gold is dissolved 3. That the speculation mentioned sets Main Reef G; M. Co. in the earlier portion When all, the solution is drawn off from the ore undis- forth an illegal invention to extract gold and of jSSS. silver from their ores. Wherefore, the Court was asked to declare solved residue, and is treated in any known for example, with zinc for recover-an- d 4. That the patent was ceded on Decem- that, the said patent was obtained illegally way, as, He said that the ing the gold and silver. ber 4th, 1 89 1, to the defendant company, unlawfully, and that it be cancelled. Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 were the same as recovery by precipitation of the gold on zinc which alleged it possessed exclusive right to use cyanide and cyanide combination as a with regard to patent No. 47, except that 74 is spoken of here as a known way, yet, in the Patent No. 74 they sought to patent this. method of extraction for gold and silver, and was substituted for 47. of the specifica- to exclusively make use of this alleged inven5. That the defendants have no right to He contended that that part tion in the South Afriean Republic. arrogate to themselves the exclusive rights tion, In dealing with ores and compounds 20 ozs. or 5. That the defendant company had no on the said alleged invention to use it in this or compounds containing, per ton, or gold and silver, we right to arrogate to themselves exclusively country, as the said patent has been obtained less of gold or silver, use a quantity of cyanide, the the above-namerights, as the said patent 47 illegally, and encroached on the rights of the generally as one of the public. nogen of which is equal in weight to from was obtained unlawfully and encroached on 6. That the specific grounds for the can- - one to four parts in every thousand parts of the right of the plaintiff as one of the public. the ore or compound, and we dissolve the 6. That the specific grounds on which cellation of the patent were: of about half the plaintiff relied for the cancellation of the (a) That the persons alleged to be the first cyanide in a quantity of water of richer 01 es said patent are as follows: (a) That the and true inventors were not the first and true the weight of the ore. In case or compounds, whilst increasing the quantity persons representing themselves as the first inventors: (3) That the alleged invention of discoverers were not the first true discover- - w,ras not new, or was not new when patented; of cyanide to suit the greater quantity That the alleged invention was (c) That the patent was not such as could gold or silver, we also increase the quantity not new, or was not new at the time of the be patented in terms of Article 1; ((f) That of water so as to keep the solution weak, be it issue of the said patent. ( c ) That the pat- the description given was not complete, for and later, in some circumstances may unent was not one such as could be patented in the same reason as was alleged with regard found desirable to conduct the operation der pressure in a closed vessel, and a higher the terms of Article 1 of the Patent Law. to Patent No. 47. The defendant company replied, after than ordinary temperature may be used if ( d) That the description was not complete, several exceptions, which resulted in sirable, all this, he contended, went to proe inasmuch as the persons demanding the patthat the patent was for an experimental pioent contended that the solution had to be a the summons being amended, that: was not a piocess that could e which and of cess, 3 1, 4 pars 2, weak solution of cyanogen, while, as a matacknowledge They C ter of fact, the given solution was not a weak the summons, but they denied the allegations patented. He contended further that was not solution of cyanogen. That the patentees contained in pars 5, 6 and 7, save and except Calcium, or potassic cyanide, MacArthur-Forres- t proc!., rested their invention on the fact that the so that, for many years before the date of the vented by the as a solution n called cyanogen solution converted gold and said patent, a solution of cyanide of potassium but was known long before would dissolve. It v other precious metals into a solution, whereas and water was used as a medium of solution which gold or silver as he v the base metals were not affected by the me- of gold and silver in the process of electro- - not capable of a selective action, its action on g dium of solution, but that this was incorrect, silvering, and that nothing contained in par prepared to prove that va and that the said solution did not possess the 7 of the summons contained grounds for can- - mingled with different compounds He also contended that it wa And of the cellation in greatly. That the pleaded they patent. specifications. advantages alleged n metallurgical compound usee the matter of making the solution described specially with regard to that portion of par in the specification was incomplete, and was 7 in both the first and second patents, in which dissolve gold from its ores, said t. at for defendant, Advocate on Esselen, to the made was reference it and that but not was patent granted 'i definite, experimental, issue of the action woultl greatly dep vague, as it did not represent any definite May 1 2th, 1S88, to Wernher Siemens, that the THE GREAT CYANIDE CASE. e ad-flour- cd ve por-respecti- to-Messr- 1 1 cya-plainti- d ff () de-maki- ng - . ff well-know- ! |