ADAMS V. BRIDGEWATER IRON 00. 17& �plaintiffs' eounsel on this motion for a new trial, I belie:ve.6o still. The case oi Stockwellv. U. S. ISWallace, 548,'draws a distinction between remediai, or eompensatory statutes, and penal statutes. That the statute here involved is penal, is not open to doubt. �If the suit might be regarded as against the several mem- bers of the firm individually, and a reeovery be sustained against Charles Sharpless alone, for publishing, a question might possibly arise whether the case should have gone to the jury, as upon a suit against him only. No snch claim having been made, however, at the trial, this aspect of the case was not considered. As- -the record stands, I incline to believe the claim, if made, must have beehdenied. �The rule, therefore, is discharged. �McKennan g. J. concurred. ���Adams and othere v. Bbidgbwateb Ibon Co. and others. �{Circuit Court, D. Maeeaehuaetts. Pebruary 26, 1881.) �li Equitt Pkactigb— Exception to Aiisweb. �, An answer is not subject to exception becanse it contains a sub- 8tantive defence not responsive to a bill in equity. �2. Same— Pleading. �" There is no regular authorized mode of pleading, like a demiir- �' rer, to test the legal validity of part of an answer ; but possibly, on �motion, some order might be taken to dispose of part of a case in the �first instance, if it should be found that gr'eai delay and expe'nse �might thereby be Bvoided."— [Ed. �In Equity. Exceptions to Answer. �Geo. W. Estabrook, for complainants. ' ' �D. Hall Bice, for defendants. �LowELL, G. J. The defendant corporation, byits answer to the bill, makes ail the defences usual in a patent suit, and adds that it bas received from the plaintiff Adams a release, under seal, of ail actions for infringement, if it bas commit- ted any. A copy of the release is set out, and the defend- ��� �
