Three wooden wheel models used as court exhibits

Why this record matters

Date

1837

Catalogue reference

J 90/597

In the early days of steam locomotives, engineers were faced with a design challenge: to quite literally re-invent the wheel.

The shape and structure of wooden or cast-iron wheels traditionally used for horse-drawn carriages were inadequate for the needs of steam-powered travel. This was due to the heavy weight of railway carriages and the new speeds they could travel at on the rails.

On 10 May 1837, John Hague (about 1781–1857) was granted a patent for his railway carriage wheels invention. However, fellow engineer William Losh (1770–1861) already held two patents for railway carriage wheels, granted in 1816 and 1830.

The first of these patents was held jointly with celebrated engineer George Stephenson, for ‘new methods of facilitating the conveyance of carriages, and all manner of goods and materials along railways and tramways’ and which included malleable iron wheels that acted as shock-absorbers.

The second was a re-working of the wheels in wrought iron, considered to be more suitable for the faster speeds that locomotives could achieve by 1830.

Losh challenged the legality of Hague’s 1837 patent, claiming it infringed on his own. He argued that Hague’s invention was based on the design principles Losh had patented and that Hague had made only minor amendments. This, to Losh, meant that Hague's patent didn’t constitute an original design.

Based on this view, Losh applied to the Court of Chancery for an injunction to stop Hague manufacturing his wheels. In the resulting court case, Hague disputed Losh’s claim.

Hague argued that Losh’s patent was invalid because it was based on technology that was already in common use. In one example, Hague referred to a patent granted in 1808 to Thomas Paton. Paton had invented an iron wheel ‘for various purposes’, although railway carriages had not been stipulated in his specification as one of these purposes.

The case was reported to have heard extensive witness evidence. These models are the only known surviving examples from a larger range of exhibits used in the case.

Labelled ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’, the models were used to demonstrate the inventions patented respectively by William Losh and George Stephenson (patent number 4067, 1816), Thomas Paton (patent number 3169, 1808), and John Hague (patent number 7369, 1837).

While Losh successfully obtained his injunction against Hague, the Court of Chancery referred the case to the Court of Exchequer Pleas. There, it was tried before a special jury in July 1838.

In this court, Losh defended his patent. He claimed that his wheels, because of the way he had applied wrought iron to their design, were more durable and less likely to be damaged.

Under examination, however, this was not considered to qualify as a significant enough difference between Losh’s and Paton’s wheels. To count as ‘new’, an invention had to consist of more than a different choice of material.

Ultimately, the jury found for the defendant: it was Losh who did not have a valid patent.