Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/757

 BRETT V. QUINTARD. 746 �alike. In each machine the blast and exhaust currents co-operate. It is impossible for me to say, in view of the history of the litigation in regard to these two machines, that the blast current in the Gill machine does not aid the exhaust current in directing the fibevs to the cone. But I am of opinion that after the fur is blown into the hopper the influence of the exhaust current in directing the fnr to the cone is the predominant influence, and this difference in the mode of operation of the two machines compels a difference of con- struction. �Upon the question of the infringement of the sixth claim there was naturally a disagreement between counsel upon the question whether the case -was to be entirely retried. The counsel for the plaintifi, supposing that the uses and the manner of use of the wet cloth by the defendant's intestate had been sufficiently proved before Judge Wood- ruff, made no formai proof of the manner in which the bat was taken from the cone, but simply introduced expert testimony that such use ■was an infringement. I shall assume that the method of removing the bat from the cone, which is described by Prof. Trowbridge, the defendant's expert, on page 7 of the printed testimony, was the method pursued by the defendant's intestate. If so, there was an infringement of the sixth claim. If the defendant asserts that this was not the method which was practiced, he will be at liberty, upon verified petition, to open the case and introduce proof s to that effect. �Let there be a decree for the plaintiffs for an accounting in respect to the sixth claim. ��� �