Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/515

500 FEDERAL REPORTER. �was matter of common discussion, was wiihout concealment, and easily ascertainable by all who chose to make inquiry, the composi- tion onght not now to be disturbed, The petition should be dismissed, with costs. ���Campbell v. The Mayob, etc., op New Yobk. (Circuit Court, 8. D. New Y<rrh. November 9, 1881.) �1. Lbttbrs Patent— Steam Fiee-Engine Pumps. �Letters patent No. 42,920, dated May 24, 1864, and issued to James Knibbs, assigner, for an improvement in steam fire-engine pumps, consisting in the use, in combination with the constant power of the engine to discharge a greater or less number of streams of water, and the same number through longer or shorter lengths of hose, of a passage from the discharge to the suc- tion side of the pump, regulated by a valve, were not anticipated by the en- gines made by the Amosljeag Manufacturing Company, the engine made by Reaney, Neafle & Co., nor by the patents either of U. A. Wilder, of Joseph Bramah, or of Benoit Duportail. �2. SuiTS TO Dbfbat a Patent — Mbasube of Pboop. �To defeat a patent the proof must be clear, beyond any fair and reasonable doubt. �3. Public Use or Sale. �It must be a public sale or use with the consent or allowance of the inven- ter, that will invalidate a patent. �In Equity. �George H. Williams, for plaintiff. �Frederic H. Betts and Wyllis G. Betts, for defendant. �Whbelbb, D. J. The plaintiff bas title to letters patent No. 42,920, dated May 24, 1864, and issued to James Knibbs, assignor, for an improvement in steam fire-engine pumps, whereby such an engine, having constant power for discharging several streams of water through Unes of hose of various lengths, may be made to throw fewer streams, or the same number through longer lines when the resist- ance to discharge would be greater, without varying the power, or causing undue strain upon the working parts or hose, by means of a passage from the diseharge to the suction side of the pump, regulated by a valve, for the surplus water on the diseharge side caused by the restriction upon the discharge. This suit is brought for an infringe- ment of this patent, which is not denied, if the patent is valid. The validity of the patent is questioned upon the ground that Knibbs was not the first inventer of this improvement ; that the same had been patented abroad prier to his invention; and that the same had been ��� �