ZANB V. PECK. 103 �to the valve stem, aud a quick screw tbread or spiral incline. Torsional movement o£ the cross-head serves to cause tiie valve stem to traverae in the direction necessary for opening the valve, but the said torsional movement of the cross-head has no effect whatever in forcing the valve onto its seat, as the spiral inclines, that in case o£ torsional movement at the handle cause the valve to move awayfrom its seat, have no corresponding inclines to force the valve onto its seat. In other words, there is a loose joint or connection between the handle and the valve mechanism that allows the force imparted by the operator to a'ct in one direction, — that is, in the direction necessary to open the valve, — and not to allow of any positive force being communicated from the liandle to force the valve onto its seat. This loose joint in Exhibit E consists in the lifting collar or sleeve having the friction rollers a,nd the spiral inclines on the top of the faucet." �"By loose joint" the expert means a joint in which the parts act upon each other by a pushing motion and not by pulling. The loose joint in the Jenkins patent is between the swivel and the valve. It is, therefore, immaterial whether there is a swivel or whether the part iormerly acting as a swivel is pinned to the screw-follower. This explanation of the Jenkins f)atent prevents the French patent of 1861, to Samy and Lenormand, from being an anticipation. The valve of this device can be aided in being drawn to its seat by turning the screw in the opposite direction from that required to throw the valve from its seat. The Chretien Moraud French patent, the only other anticipatory patent apparently relied upon by the defendant, was sufficiently considered in the former case. �The strength of the defence was in the alleged fact that self- closing faucets, eonstructed substantially like the defendants' device, were made and sold in the city of New York between 1852 and 1856 by P. H. Bartholomew, a well-known manufacturer of hydrants and plumbers' articles, who was also an inventor' and patentee of hy- drants, valves, and water-closets. Mr. Bartholomew is now dead, and no specimen of his faueet is produced. His former foreman, who is also now a manufacturer of plumbers' materials, has presented a faucet which he considers to be a reproduction of those made by Bartholomew, and which is substantially the defendants' article. If it is a reproduction the Jenkins patent was anticipated between 1852 and 1856. �There is produced on the one hand the testimony of the foreman and of divers workmen, who testify, in substance, that faucets like the sample were made and sold by Bartholomew, and that one was in use in his shop. Other workmen of his who were employed at the same time do not remember such an article. There is also the negative testimony of plumbers, who did business with him, that they never ��� �
