EOBERTS V. SCHRBIEER. 865 �is described in his patent. Certain it is that no one of the experimenters, whose testimony we have been considering, can say 'I did it.'" �Our conclusion, then, is that the defendant bas net suc- ceeded in showing that the patent, No. 6,258, is invalid for • want of novelty and originality of the invention, or for any other reason. The patent is therefore sustained. The defend- ant's answer substantially admits the infringement cbarged. In describing the mode of torpedoing an oil well practieed by him and his servants, agents and employes, since the third of April, 1875, it states that iron casing is put down within the well to a point below where fresh-water veins are struck in boring, and the borer is then projected down until the oil-bearing rock is reached. A pump tube is then inserted through the casing and lowered down into the oil rock. This relates to the construction of the well. �The answer then proceeds to say that if it is deemed advisa- ble to try the experiment of torpedoing the well the sucker rods and tubing are drawn, and the well is left with the casing in it to keep the water in it f rom coming in — meaning, of course, only that from the fresh-water veins. The torpedo is then placed at such point as the manager of the well may direct, and is exploded. No water or other fluid is put in the well, or permitted to corne into it, so far as its entrance can be con- trolled, and fresh water is effectually excluded by the casing. No extraneous fluid is ever introduced into the well, though it may and sometimes does happen that there will be fluid in the well above the point at which the explosion is effected; but it will be only oil, or sait water and oil, whioh cornes in, if at ail, at points below the casing, and no regard is placed to its presence so long as it does not fill up the well to the bottom of the casing. Such fluid cannot be excluded, as the fresh-water veins can be and are by the casing; nor is any regard paid to the absence of fluid in the well, because fluid is not at ail desired ; nor is it relied upon for any efïect ta be produced thereby. Such is the defendant's description. It will be observed he does not deny that water tamping always attends his process, and the proof is quite clear that, �V.2,no.l0— 55 ����
