Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/91

 FISCHER V. HAYE3. 79 �improvement patented for any purpose. The improvement is stated in the specification to be an invention relating to "a new machine for pressing mouldings for cornices, etc., from galvanizei or other slieet metal." What is meant by "mouldings" is sliown by the red lines in figures 2 and 3 of the drawings. They are structures resulting from round or angular bends in sheet metal. The allegation of the bill is sufficient. �(4) As to the use by the defendant, the evidence of MacClay shows that since the patent was granted the defendant bas used at his places of business in the city of New York, for making sky-light bars, a machine embodying the inventions covered by claims 2 and e of the patent, with the female die above, and reeiprocating up and down, and the maie die be- low, not re-reciprocating, and resting on an upright standard, which was bent over at the top so as to allow metal which had been partly bent to swing down under the maie die, while f urther bends were being made, and not have the prior bends crushed out. The maie die was so arrangea that no dirt could collect around it, or between it and the female die. The defendant had this machine made for himself. In the Fischer machine and in the defendant's machine only two dies are in place at a time, one upper one and one lower one. Ab- bott says that he saw the defendant's machine used in his factory to bend sheet metal into a sky-light bar. The evi- dence is sufficient to show the use of the machine in infringe- ment of claims 2 and 4, in bending square angles in sheet metal. This is enough. Moreover, the answer admits that the defendant bas a machine, and uses or operates it. A drawing of it is given by the witness MacClay. It was easy for the defendant to show, if the fact were so, that this draw- ing was not correct, or that the machine had not been used by him in the shape shown, to make the bends testified to in sheet-metal sky-light bars. �(5) The bill alleges that the defendant's use of the machine has been without the plaintiff's consent. This allegation is not specifically denied in the answer, nor does the answer ��� �