232 FEDERAL REPaRTEB. �Matthews V. The Balance & Grosjean Manueactur- �ING Co. �(CWcu^i Court, 8. D. New York. AprU 28, 1880.) �Patent — Bill fob Infbinqement of Sbvebal Patents — Plea to Whole Bili/— Pbactice. — Where a bill was flled for the Infringement of several patents, to which a plea that said patents were not connectee! in one mechanism, or conjointly used, was interposed, general replica- tion made, aad proofs thereon taken, held, that as the plea did nothing butdenyan averment in thebill,thecomplainantwasontitlcdto recover, If it appeared that the defehdant's structure embodied in it an invention covered by only one of said patents. �Bquity Plbadinq — Plea — Bad dt Substance.— Plea to the whole bill in this case averring- that the several patents set forth in the bill are for separate and distinct inventions, not in point of fact connected together in use or occupation, and not in fact conjointly embodied in any mech- anism manufactured by defendant, ?ieîd, bad in substance. �A. V. Boresen, for plaintiff. �B. F. Lee, for defendant. �Blatchfobd, C. J. This bill is brought for the infringement of five several letters patent. The bill alleges that the defend- ant made, used, and vended to others to beused, "soda water and other fountains, each made according to, and employing and containing, the inventions described and claimed in each of the above-named letters patent and re-issued letters patent." The defendant put in a plea to the bill. The plea sets forth that the bill is brought for the infringement of five separate let- ters patent, (designating and identifying them as the same ■which are set up in the bill,) "ail of which said letters patent are for separate and distinct alleged inventions," (a fact which the bill shows,) "which several alleged inventions are not, in point of fact, connected together in use or operation, and are not, in point of fact, conjointly embodied in any of the soda water and other fountains manufactured, used or sold by this defendant; so that the said plaintiff, by his single bill of complaint afore- said, seeks to compel this defendant to unite five separate and distinct defences, depending severally upon distinct and differ- ent proofs, so as to complicate the defence, and embarrass this defendant in its answer to the said bill of complaint ; and that it is not true, as alleged in said bill, that the said defendant ����
