90 FEDERAL REPORTER. �Blatchford, C. J. ihe decision of this court on final hearing, on pleadings and proofs, in the case of the same plaintiff against George Hayes, disposes of ail material ques- tions in this case except tiiat of infringement. As to that, the bill alleges that the defendant "has operated and used, and is still operating and using, in the city of New York, state of New York, and within the southern district of New York, a machine or machines, constructed in accordance with and containing and embodying the said invention, so secured to your orator as aforesaid." The testimony of Mr. Abbott shows that he saw at the defendant's shop, June 19, 1879, which was four days before the bill was sworn to, and five days before it was filed, a machine for bending sheet metal, of which he produces a drawing. He also describes the con- struction and mode of operation of the machine and the dies he so saw. It is clear that to make or use such a machine in the way described, to bend sheet metal, infringes the fourth claim of the plaintiff's patent. Mr. Abbott says that at the time of his said visit he was informed by a gentleman, who represented himself as the foreman of the defendant's shop, that this machine had been used whenever required, for bend- ing sheet metal for cornices and similar work, ever since he had been there, "which, I think, he said was about two years." No objection was made on the record to this hear- say evidence. If no objection is made atthe time to evidence, ail objection to it is considered as waived. If a general ob- jection to it is made, but no ground of objection is specified, the objection will not be considered. If a ground of objec- tion is stated, ail grounds not specified are considered as waived. Camden\. Dorem.us,B 'Rovf. 515; Evanstony.Gunn, 99 U. S. 660. But there is sufficient in the defendant's answer, in connection with the testimony of Mr. Abbott, out- side of said hearsay evidence, to establish infringement by a use by the defendant of the machine seen by Mr. Abbott at his shop. The defendant is not himself sworn, nor does he produce any witness to show that Mr. Abbott's drawing or de- scription is incorrect, or that the machine was not used by the defendant, or that the defendant had more than one ��� �
