195

C.—3

solution, and also to do some other work with the solution after the gold is extracted- Then again, in 1884 one Simpson took out a patent in the United States, and his specification was published here before the date of the plaintiffs' patent. Simpson's process, as described in this specification, was substantially identical with the plaintiffs' except that the solution he mentions is one not of cyanide of potassium only, but of a comparatively small quantity of carbonate of ammonia added. Of this addition of carbonate of ammonia the plaintiffs have naturally made the most, but I am satisfied on the evidence that the addition does not substantially affect the operation of the cyanide of potassium on the ore, and that Simpson's solution is perfectly efficacious. Why he added the carbonate of ammonia is not clear; possibly because it was of use when the ores were what is termed " acid ;" possibly because he did not dare, having regard to existing knowledge, to claim boldly the cyanide alone. But, I think, a person reading this specification would gather from it that cyanide of potassium was the main ingredient, and was employed because it was a solvent for the gold in the ore. Under these circumstances I come to the conclusion that at the date of the plaintiffs' patent, having regard to what was then published and known, there was no real invention in the plaintiffs' so-called discovery. And, indeed, when I consider the evidence of Mr. Mac Arthur as to how he came to make his alleged discovery, what it comes to really is this : that, so far as the main alleged invention is concerned, he wanted to find a solution for the gold in the ore and tried several solvents, and among them he tried cyanide of potassium, which he knew to be a solvent of fine gold, and, not unnaturally, he found that it answered. There being, in my opinion, no real invention or discovery in the application at the date of the patent of a solution of cyanide of potassium to extract the gold from powdered ore, it follows that on this ground alone the patent must fail. But before I quit this part of t,he case I ought to say a word about the expert evidence bearing on it. Several eminent chemists were called on each side, but the two sides do not agree in their evidence, and in the conflict of testimony I am not only at liberty but am bound to exercise my own judgment, and that judgment agrees with the views of Mr. Eiley, Mr. Mactear, and Professor Attfield, who stated that, in their opinion, at the date of this patent no invention was required to discover that a solution of cyanide of potassium could be practically applied to dissolved gold and silver in crushed ore. But, in addition to the above, I think there is another ground on which this patent is bad, even if the invention was one which could form the good subject of a patent, I think it was anticipated by Eae's and Simpson's specifications. Test it in this way : If the patent were held valid, would not Eae's and Simpson's processes, if now used according to the specifications published, be liable to be stopped as infringements ? I think they certainly would. What chance of escape would a person have who took Eae's, for instance, and used the cyanide of potassium specially mentioned by Eae ? It would be said against that person with crushing effect that he was using the cyanide of potassium for the very purpose pointed out in the plaintiffs' patent—namely, to dissolve the gold in the crushed ore, and not the less because he tried to assist the process by the aid of electricity, which might or might not be of any real assistance, and certainly not the less because he used the electricity also for another and different purpose. So, also, a person now using Simpson's process would be liable to be stopped ; for it would be proved against him that he was using the cyanide of potassium for the very purpose, and in the very way pointed out in the plaintiffs' specification, and that the addition of carbonate of ammonia made no material difference. To hold that Simpson's was not an anticipation would lead to a strange result. A person using cyanide of potassium alone would be an infringer, but if he chose to add a slight amount of carbonate of ammonia (which is cheap and practically innocuous) he could not be restrained. This would in itself render the plaintiffs' patent practically valueless. Now, as the specifications of Eae and Simpson were published here before the date of the plaintiffs' patent, all persons in this country are at liberty to use the processes there set forth, and that right is incompatible with those persons being liable, if they do use such processes, to an injunction at the suit of the plaintiffs. For these reasons the action must be dismissed. His Lordship said the plaintiffs must pay the costs of the action, with the exception of those which related to infringement. These costs must be paid by the defendants, as they had unnecessarily put the plaintiffs to a great deal of expense on this part of the case. Execution must be stayed pending an appeal on the plaintiffs undertaking to appeal at once. It will be seen from this action that there is very little chance of the cyanide-of-potassium monopoly existing much longer in this colony. It becomes a question whether certain companies, who have entered into an agreement with the Cassel Company to pay a royalty for the use of cyanide of potassium, can be held to be binding, seeing that the royalty is charged for a patent which cannot be upheld. Taking Messrs. Mac Arthur and Forrest's patents, as granted in this colony, the claim they make is as follows : — For the Use of Cyanide of Potassium.. " For carrying out the invention, the ore or other coTipound in a powdered state is treated with a solution containing,cyanogen, or a cyanide, such as cyanides of potassium, sodium, or ammonium, or other substances or compounds containing or yielding cyanogen, till all or nearly all of the gold and silver is dissolved ; the operation being conducted in a wooden vessel, or a vessel made of or lined with a material not acted on to any considerable extent by the solution or substances contained therein. The solution is then drawn off, and the metal or metals are recovered by any suitable process, and the cyanogen, cyanide, or substance containing or yielding cyanogen, may be regenerated. The cyanogen, or substance containing or yielding cyanogen, may be used as such, or such materials may be taken as will, by mutual action, form cyanogen, or substances containing or yielding the same. " Under certain circumstances it may be found desirable to conduct the operations under pressure, in which case a closed vessel must be employed; and in any case, if found advisable, such operation may be carried on under varying conditions of temperature, and in either closed or open vessels.