Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/285

 ANDKEWS V. CBOSS. ?|T1 �may extend (rom tlw bottom of the tube upward tvam one to two feet. The diameter of th^-;tube shoulfj be somewhat sinaller than.the.diameter c»f tha swell, a, on the drill end oIE the driving, rod, D. In localities where the vvat'er is near the surface of the ground, and thp well is for temporary use ohly, as in the case of a moving army or for temporary camps, lighter ahdthinner mate- rials than iron may be used for making the tubes, as, for instance,^ zinc, tin, copper, or sheet metal of other kindjor even wood may be uaed, The rOd may be of any suitable and practical slze that can be readily driven or forced into the ground, and may be from one to three inches in diameter. In some cases the water will flowout from the top of the tube without the aid of a pump. In other cases, the aid of a pump to draw the watet froin the well may be necessary. In the latter'cases, I attach to the tube, by an air- tight connection, any known form of pump." �The claim is as follows : . �" The process of constructing wells by driving or forcing an instrument jnto the ground until it is projected into the water, without removing the eartli upward, as it is in boring, substantially as herein described." �The plaintiffs claim as exclusive owiierB of the re-issue for the county of Madison, New York, and haVe proTed their title to that effoct. The bill alleges that the defendant has m^de, sold, and uS'ed wells in Oazenovia, in said Madison county, emhracing said invention, a^d tnat he has one or more of said wells and is using the Bame. Thc answer sets up as defences-^ ' :>' ^ �(1) That Green is not the. " flrst' and original" ihventor; (2) that the bill " does not desctibe any improveinent in the mettiod of cohsti'ueting "Breills, or Otherwise, by which the defendant can know the process Or improvement in the manner of constructing wells" claiihed in the bill ;' (3) that the defendant is a wagon-maker and has done no other business, and the iiianufaofciiring of wells is not an incident to bis profession' or trade; (4) that the claim oiP Greeit as inventor was barred because the improvement waS in Use more than two years prior to the granting of his patent; (5) that the re-issue "doek not de^ scribe any new proeess, or any new discovery or invention, but only claiins ah addition to the original patent, a patent on the freefliow Of water, which is not patentable, as it does not claim any patent or any hew invention of the application or uses of flowing water, and is therefore void, and of no force and virtue, and ha,ving been adopted and gone into general use by the public, said pretended patent is therefore void in law and eq^uity." ■ �The answer also sets up that a United States patent granted to James Suggett, March 9, 1865, No. 42,126, describes the same pror cess- claimed by the original patent to Green; that the re-issue to Green is an infringement on the said patent to Suggett, and on three United States patents, one Canaldian patent, and one iBritish- patent, granted prior to the original paient to Green. It doesnot allege that the patent to Suggett was granted before the inveution of Greenwftg ��� �