Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/826

 812 PEDEBAIi ÎIBPOBTEE. used in limekilns for many years before their patent was issued, and before their attention had been directed to fur- naces for quicksilver-bearing ores. They only applied what was well known and used in other furnaces to a quicksilver furnace. There is also evidence in this case— not presented, as I am informed, in the Great Western Mining Case — of the exist- ence and use at varions places in Europe of continuously- working quicksilver furnaces anterior to the complainants* invention. Professor Church, a gentleman shown to be exten- sively acquainted with furnaces îox roasting and smelting ores, testifies to having seen several of them in operation there. It may be and probably is true that the complain- ants were the first persons in this country to put into opera- tion a continuously-working quicksilver furnace; but they are not the originatora of the idea of a furnace of that kind. As to the first claim — for the cross draft with the pigeon- hole partitions, or receding arches — it is sufficient to say that the defendants are not using those devices, and have not used them, or what can be regarded as an equivalent for them. Tbey are not, therefore, infringers. The fire-plaoe in their furnace has no pigeon-hole partition, and is near the bottom of the furnace. They bave no cross draft, but use a vertical draft, such as is employed in ail other furnaces where an outlet is desired for the fumes of the subject con- sumed or heated. This case has been heard upon evidence more extended than that presented in the case of the Great Western Mining Co., and much new information as to quicksilver and other furnaces previously used has been furnished. The case has been prepared and presented by counsel on both sides with a fuUness and learning worthy of ail admiration It will not probably rest here, but find its way to the supreme court of the United States, where ail errors of mine will be corrected. The improvements of the complainants, in my judgment, liave not becu infringed by the defendant. A decree must therefore be entered dismissin<4 the bill, with costs ; and it is «0 ordered.