WILLIAMS V. EABKER. 649 �wholly inadmissible. The same raies of evidence oLtain upon this proceeding as'upon any other trial. �For the reason that the record shows that there are no assets. and does not show an assent by the requisite propor- tion of creditors who*have proved their debts, the discharge is refused. ���Williams ». Barkes and another. �{Cvreuit Court, 8. J). New York. May 28, 1880.) �Patest — Improvbments in Porm of a Païented Machine — Machinb �DiFFBEENT IN FoKM, B0X PnODUCrNG THE SaME RfiSULTa, �In Equity. �Chas. F. Blaice, for complainant. �J, B. Fitch, for defendant. �Wheelee, D. j. This suit is brought upon letters patent re-issued to the plaintifï June 4, 1872, the original of which ■was dated November 26, 1861, for an improvement in ma- chines for applyihg flock to felt rubber goods. The defence is that the patent cannot stand broad enough to cover the defendant's machine. �The defendants bave put in evidence two English patents : one granted to William Green and Joseph Pickett, October 21 1864, and sealed April 21, 1855, for improvements in treat- ing or ornamenting textile materials or fabrics; the other granted to Stanislas Tranquille Modeste Sorel, June 23, 1855, and sealed November 16, 1855, for a machine for applying adhesive matters on stuffs. The latter only need be noticed here. In a machine tbere described the fabric to be treated was passed from a cylinder on whioh it was wound over an- other cylinder, where the adhesive ' material was distributed upon it; thence over a stretcher above the line of the top of the distributing cylinder, and not far from it, designated ia the patent and drawings by the letter J ; thence under a flock ����
