Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/283

ANDBEWS V. CB0B8, �employment for his teams when pot otherwise .at work. The present case is, therefore, quite different from Kimball's, as thechief occupa- tion of these bankrupts was in stock trading and slaughtering the cattle, and their farming was, in (iomparison, of but little moment. �In Cote s Case, it is conceded by the court tkat a butcher ordiuarily ■would be deemed a tradesman within the bankrupt act ; and as it is not claimed that these bankrupts kept any books of account other than small pocket diaries, which afforded no information as to their affaire, the court is, for this cause, compelled to deny them their discharge, without passing upon other objections which are made by the oppos- ing creditor. ���Andbews and others v. Cboss. (Circuit Court, 2f. D. New York. June 1, 1881.) �1. Re-Ibsub No. 4,372— Deivbn Wells— Validitt. �Re-isued letters patent No. 4,372, granted May 9, 1871, to Nelson W. Greeii,\ for improvement in process in constructing artesian wells, hda, valid. �2. ClAIM — CONSTKUOTIOir— PROCB88 -NOVBL ELEMENT— NoN-FlOWING WbLL— �New Principle — Flowing Well. �The claim of the patent, to-wit, " the proceas of constructing wells by driv- ing or forcing an instrument into the ground until it is projected into the water, without removing the earth upwards, as it is in boring, substantially as herein described," hdd, to be a claim to a process. The novel element in the process consists in driving a tube tightly into the earth, without removing the earth upwards, to serve as a well-pit, and attaching thereto (in a non-flowing well) a pump, so that the process puts to practieal use the new principle of forc- ing the water, in the water-bearing strata of the earth, from the earth into a well-pit, by the use of artiflcial power applied to create a vacuum in the water- bearing strata of the earth, and, at the same time, in the well-pit. In a flowing well, to make the hole by displacement, and insert the tube and have the water flow, develops the process. �3. NoN-FLowma Well— Process— Infeingbment. �In a non-flowing driven well, the use, to procure water, oi a pump is a use of the process, and an infringement, although the person using the well and the pump and the process may not be the person who caused the rod to be driven, or the hole to be made, or the tube to be inserted, or the pump to be attached. �4. Ihventor — SciBNTiFic Principle — Omission in Specification. �An in ventor may be ignorant of the scientiflc or physical principle upon which his process acts, or may think he knows it and yet be uncertain, or he may be confident as to what it is and yet others may think dififercntly, and he may, through accident or design, omit to set it forth in the application ; yet if he sets forth the process or mode of operation which ends in the resuit, and the means for working out the process and mode of operation, and if in such description the thing is so set forth that it can be reoroduced, such omission will not T-Miate the patent. ��� �