ndants in the
case--the Metropolitan Wood Paving Company.

I therefore warn all Public Authorities and persons using, or assisting
in using Wooden Blocks for Paving, that such infringement upon my Patent
will be suppressed; but I am prepared (as is my Licencee, Mr Blackie),
to execute any extent of Wood Paving of any description upon contract,
and also to grant licenses for the adoption and promotion of the great
advantage and benefits of Wood Paving in London, and all parts of
England, Scotland, and Ireland.

For terms, parties may apply to me, or to my solicitor, Mr John Duncan,
72 Lombard street, London, or to Mr A.B. Blackie, No. 250 Strand.

(Signed) DAVID STEAD

250 Strand, London, Sept. 4, 1843.

* * * * *

WOOD PAVEMENT.--STEAD v. WILLIAMS AND OTHERS.

(Abridged from the Liverpool Albion.)

This was an action for an infringement of a patent for the paving of
roads, streets, &c. with timber or wooden blocks. Mr Martin and Mr
Webster were for the plaintiff; Mr Warren and Mr Hoggins for the
defendants; Mr John Duncan, of 72 Lombard street, was the solicitor for
the plaintiff.

The plaintiff is Mr David Stead, formerly a merchant of the City of
London; the defendants are, nominally, Mr Lewis Williams, and several
others, who are the surveyors of streets and paving at Manchester; but
the action was really against the Metropolitan Wood Paving Company.

About the year 1836 or 1837 Mr Nystrom, a Russian merchant, with whom Mr
Stead had had transactions in business came to England, having whilst in
Russia devoted his attention to the mode of pavement in that country,
which was done in a great measure by wood. He communicated with Mr
Stead, who paid a great deal of attention to the matter, and materially
improved the scheme; and it was the intention of Mr Nystrom and Mr
Stead, in 1835 or 1837, to take out a patent, but Mr Nystrom found it
necessary to return to Russia, and thus frustrated that intention.

On the 19th of May, 1838, the plaintiff, however, took out a patent, and
this was the one to which attention was directed. Four months were
allowed for inrolment, but as six months was the usual period, the
plaintiff imagined that that would be the period allowed to him, and
inadvertently allowed the four months to elapse before he discovered his
mistake.

On the 21st of June, 1841, however, an Act of Parliament was passed,
confirming the patent to Mr Stead, as though it ha