Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/337

ATLANTIC GIANT POWDER CO. V. DITTMAB POWDER CO. 329 �speciflcally mentioned in said patent; that the said soîid ingre- dients have the property of absorbing, and retaining by absorption, nitro-glycerine, and are free from any quality which will cause them to decompose, destroy or injure nitro- glycerine; that the nitro-glycerine is combined with them in such proportions as to be retained without liability to separa- tion, by compression or leakage ; that the said solid redients are not liable to explode by concussion, as nitro-glycerine is ; that the entire oombinations constitute, inhis opinion, "safety powders," which can undergo the ordinary shacks of trans- portationand manipulation without explosion; that the nitro- glycerine therein is explosible, in blasting operations, by the means ordinarily employed for exploding nitro-glycerine; that, while the mixture is in the form of a powder, the nitro- glycerine remains, in his opinion, so compact and concen- trated as to have its original explosive power; and that the cellulose, or paper stock ("pulp,") and the sawdust, in said mixtures, perform the same function as charcoal, or carbon, both as to the absorption of the nitro-glycerine, and as to combustionby the beat of the explosion of the nitro-glycerine, and they perform it in the same way, and they perform no other function. In the Eand case the defendants' powder contained, nitro-glycerine, 34.71 parts; nitrate of potash, 52.68 parts; sulphur, o.S-l parts; woody fiber, charcoal and resin, in nearly equal proportions, 5.77 parts. In the Parker case the defendants' powder contained, nitrate of soda, 56 parts; charcoal, 14 parts; nitro-glycerine, 30 parts. In the Goodyear case, before Judge Shepley, the defendants' powder contained, nitro-glycerine, 32.60 parts; nitrate of soda, 49.46 parts; charcoal, 9.63 parts; suljphur, 8.31 parts. Ail of these powders were held to be infringements of the plaintiiï's patent. What Dr. Hayes testifies, as above set forth, in regard to the powders in the present case, shows that they must, for the reasons given in the Rand, Parker and Good- year cases, be held to be infringements of said patent, unless certain mat'ters presented by the defendants in this case shàll be suffibient to lead to a different conclusion. �The defendants contend that the only powder they mak& ��� �