NEW PE0CES8 FERMENTATION CO. V. BALTZ. 289 �New Process Fermentation Co. v. BALTa.** �{Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. January 18, 1882.) �1. Pbocesb for Makino Bbbr — Infringbmeni , �Letters patent No. 215,679, for a new and useful apparatus and improve- ment in processes for making beer, TiAd not to be infringed by the use of the Guth patented bung after the casks are bunged, simply for the purpose of rack- ing ofl the beer from the shavings casks and relieving them from the excessive pressure of carbonlc acid gas. �Final Hearing on Pleadings and Proof, �Bill for injunction against infringement of letters patent No. 215,- 679, dated May 20, 1874, for a new and useful apparatus and im- provement in processes for making beer. The answer denied both the novelty and the infringement. The evidence showed that in the man- ufacture of the beer after the casks containing the beer were bunged respondent used the bung patented by Henry Guth, in letters pat- ent No. 225,368, for the purpose of racking off the beer from the shavings casks and relieving them from excessive pressure. The principal question raised was whether, in using this bung, respondent infringed complainant's patent. �Banning de Banning, F. W. Cotzhausen, and P. C. Dyrenforth, for complainants. �John Dolman, for respondent. �McKennan, C. J. Although the answer denies the validity of the patent on which this suit is founded, the respondent's counsel bas confined his discussion of the case to the question of infringement, and that is the only question which we deem it necessary to consider. �The only proof in support of the allegation of infringement pro- duced by the complainant is the testimony of Mathias Hoffman, but, unaided by the presumption arising from the absence of any proof on the other side, itcould not be regarded as sufficient to acquit the com- plainant of the burden which rests upon it. It is answered fully, however, by the testimony of John Birken stock. From 1873 to 1879 he was assistant foreman at the respondent's brewery, and after the latter date was the brewer. He had responsible charge of the manu- facture of beer, and the whole process was conducted under his super- vision and direction. He distinctly negatives the use of any part of the process described and covered by the complainant's patent. �«Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Baq., of the Philadelphia bar. ■V.10,no.2— 19 ��� �
