HOLIiY »;VEeQBliNeS 'MACHINE CO. 7? �the severity of the pressure in the mainSj and iinsleyliaa none for lessening the quantity as the pressure iiiefeased. His System was neàrer like the plaintiff's than any other was ; but his lacked some of the essehtial features of the plaintiff'e. Hîs had means for slacking the pumping machinery, wheh the pressure in the mains decreased, to prevent the machinery from running away if the pressure should be removed by burst- ing or other casualty ; but tbis is quite different from regulating the supply according tô the pressure. He hàd pipes leading each way from the main, carrying the water np to the reservoir, and as to those pipes the -w'ater was pumped direetly into them -without going to the reservoir; but, as thôy were con- nected by the main with the reservoir, the pressure in them •vfould be regulated by the 'pressure from the reservoir, and Would not in any manner reguîate the quantity pumped' ac- cording to t'heir requirements. Birkinbine had a safety-valve on; the main for the same pUrposes as the plaintiflE's relief valve, but his valve was held by dead-weights, while the plaintiff's is steadied by a dash-pot. , ,..: �■: N(î»ne pf:, these things show that the plaintiff was .nçt the original, and first inventer of the inventions described in both patents. Thi? is in accord^nce with the decision pf Drtim- mond and, Gresham,]]., mHoUy v. Union City, 14 Q. G. 5;,.so f ar aa that decision goesj ■which only involved the re-issued patent. This suit rests upon the first claim to that patent, ■which is for "the above-describçd me^hod of supplying a city ■with water, — that is to say, by pumping direetly into the water mains when.the apparatus for that purpose is supplied \\rith contrivances by which the pressure within those mains may be preserved in a great degree uniform, sufficiently so for praetical purposes, or increased or diminished at pleasure, — substantially as and for the purpose above shown." It ia pbjected that this claim does not speeify any devices consti- tuting the system mentioned, and that it is too indefinite to furnish a foundation for a claim for inf ringement ; but thia objection cannot prevail. The patent is to be read ail to- gether, for the purpose of asoertaining the meaning of the ■whole and of every part ; consequently the specification may ����
