Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/468

 .454 FEDERAL REPORTER. �t �tbat patent. The defendant bas oonstructed two elevatora made substantially in aceordance with patent No. 181,113. The defendant's expert, Mr. Eliot, testifies that he regards a machine oonstructed according to patent No. 181,113 as being substantially different in its construction and mode of operation from a machine constructed according to patent No. 132,111; that the peculiarity of a machine constructed according to patent No. 181,113 consista in using the water in a cylinder, combined with the working cylinder, in such a manner that the pressure of the water in said cylinder sball serve to always equalize the constant weight of the car or cage and its attachments, whatever they may be; that under such a construction no additional power is added beyond what is required as a mere counterbalance, and said counterbalance is a constant quantity in weight, and ita method of application is for precisely the same purpose as ■when weights are ordinarily added to said cars or cages for the purpose of counterbalancing them; and that in a machine so organized there is but one working cylinder used, in the sense in which that term is used as applied to machines ; that is, furnishing a power adapted to the load to be lifted. There is nothing in the testimony of the plaintifs experti Mr. Mcintyre, which establishes the contrary of the foregoing view, and the counsel for the plaintiff contends, in argu- ment, that what is found in patent No. 172,896 is alsofound in patent No. 181,113, with the exception of the central valve which in patent No. 172,896 is found in the central piston. The considerations before stated as reasons why an appa- ratus constructed according to patent No. 172,896 does not infringe patent No. 132,111, go to show, in connection with the considerations set forth in the testimony of Mr. Eliot, just recited, as to patent No. 181,113, that an apparatua constructed according to patent No. 181,113 does not infringe patent No. 132,111. �The defendant testified that he put into each of the two elevators, which he made in aceordance with patent No. 181,- 113, a safety brake like that shown in patent No. 132,112. ����