The Southern Literary Messenger, Vol. I., No. 2, October, 1834Various
General
The Southern Literary Messenger, Vol. I., No. 2, October, 1834
Various
American literature -- 19th century -- Periodicals
Mr. Moore having ascertained that by applying two plain simple metalic
apertures of the given sizes, he was not able to draw the same quantity
in square inches of water, but only 65 and 2/3d per cent. of the
amount, he therefore applied the adjutages described by Professor
Venturi; and for these applications, which were alleged to be a breach
of the contract, an action was instituted in the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania.
It will be perceived that this case involved not only important
principles of law, but interesting inquiries in hydrodynamics, to aid
in the discussion of which, large draughts were made upon the
scientific attainments of the accomplished bar of Philadelphia. For the
plaintiff were engaged John Sergeant and Horace Binney, Esquires; but
the absence of the latter gentleman at Congress, occasioned the
retaining of C. Chauncey, Esquire; for the defendants were Joseph R.
Ingersol and Peter A. Browne, Esquires.
The cause occupied several days, during which time the court house was
continually crowded with an intelligent audience.
The questions were, first, whether the granter was confined to the use
of _simple_ apertures of the dimensions mentioned in the deed, when it
was apparent from the opinions of men of science, and from the
experiments made before the jury, that through such openings it was not
possible for him to draw more than 65 and 2/3d per cent. of the water
contracted for, (it being a law of nature that when a fluid is drawn
from a simple aperture or opening, the stream or vein is contracted so
as to form the figure of a cone;) or whether the grantee was entitled,
at all events, to his 300 inches of water, and had a right to affix
adjutages to overcome this law of nature, and restore things to the
state they were supposed to be in by the parties, if, when they
contracted, they were ignorant of this principle. Second. The defendant
having contracted for as much water as "_can pass_" through metalic
apertures of given sizes, whether he was entitled, provided he did not
increase the size of the openings, nor increase the head, so to adjust
the adjutages as to draw _more_ water than 300 square inches; for it
was proved by another set of experiments that, by reason of the
adjutages at the defendant's mill, he had contrived, not only to
overcome the _vena contracta_ or contracted vein, but to draw off more
water than would have passed through a plain opening if the vena
contracta did not exist.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account