CONSOLIDATED, ETC., CO. V. CB03BT, SCO., CO. 771 �of 100 pounds. The validity of Eichardson*8 patotit was not in issue in that case, but only a comjjarison of his valve with that of Naylor, owned by Asberoft. In Richardson v. Ash- croft, which is not reported, and which was not taken to the supreme court, Judge Sbepley sustained the patent.- Ile must, therefore, have found that the specification of Eich- ardson was sufficient, and that he was the firgt to invent whatever the court considered to be claimed by him; but exactly what that was, I am not informed. �In this record the defendant introduces two English pat- ents not brought out in Richardson v. Ashcroft, and bas ex- amined two accomplished experts in relation to them. They also produce, the American re-issued patent to Waterman, which I suppose to have been before Judge Sbepley in con- nection with the state of the art, but which, if we may judge from the pleadings, was not relied on to defeat the novelty of the Richardson patent. The original patent of Water- man, which was considerably older than Richardson's, while claiming an improvement to a different part of the valve, showed a structure so much like Richardson's that Richard- son sought out the inventor, and they made a joint stock of their two patents, and prooured a re-issue of that of Water- man, in which he specifies a mode of construction by which, when the valve is raised from its seat, the escaping steam is 80 directed as to enter an overhanging or projecting annular chamber on the top or upper part of the valve, and outside of and beyond the ground joint. He describes how this force may be modified by a modification of the overhanging or projecting annular surface. He goes into all the details of the necessary and proper construction; and, in short, as I understand it, describes the Richardson valve, with a stric- ture and all, excepting that bis additional lift was due wholly to the expansive power of the steam admitted to the annular chamber, while Richardson used both the impact of the issu- ing steam and its subsequent expansive power. Naylor had used the impact only. �The two patents newly found in this case are those of Ritchie and of Webster. Both deseribe and show, by draw- ings, valves intended to operate in the same general way witb ��� �
