Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/120

 ZANE V. PBCK. 105 �may exten.i through the top of the cap, there to be operated in any desired manner." Gen. Morrison and other •witnesses say that Bar- tholomew made some hydrants before 1856, which went into use in the city of New York, the valves of which were lifted by a handle at the top of the hydrant. The witness says: �" On turning the handle, its incline, coming in contact with the incline ou the cap, raised the valve-rod or spindie against the pressure of the spring, at the same time raising the valve from its seat and thus allowing the water to pass. By letting go the handle, the spring returned the valve automatically to its seat, thus making the valve self-closing." �After 18,56 none were sold except two which lay in the shop until 1877, and these were sold to Mr. Soffe as exhibits in a suit upon the Jenkins patent. One of these did not have a pitch which would cause the handle to drop when left at any point. The other, which is the exhibit in this case, bas a quicker pitch, and, if it ever had been used, might have been treated as an anticipation of the patent. Whether those which were sold for use were like the other Soffe exhibit, or like this, is not made clear. This method of opening the valve was not, apparently, regarded by Bartholomew as important. He laid no stress upon it in bis advertisements. He treated it as unimportant in his patent. He made a few, but probably the use of the lever was preferred, and he made no more. �Judge Shepley found that the defendants in the Massachusetts case did not infringe the Roach patent. Since his decision the patent bas been reissued, and it is now insisted that there is an infringment of the second and fourth claims. I do not percoive any modification of the original patent which is sufficient to cause a modification of Judge Shepley's opinion. The rotating key of Eoach is not used by the defendants. �Let there be a decree for an injunction, and for an accounting as to an infringement of the first claim of the Jenkins patent, and dis- missing so mueh of the bill as relates to an infringement of the Eoach reissued patent. ��� �