BLAEE V. m'nAB <fe HANU.N HANUF'g 00. 825 �and a supply-cock, and a drip-box arranged below and around the supply-cock, but the drip-box is cast upon the side of the trunk near its top, and not upon its top. The drip goes into the drip-box, and thence into the trunk and the soil-pipe. The question is whether the change of the position of the drip-box is formai or substantial, It is eontended, for the defendants, — �That it was not new to have a drip-box, or to hav« a pipe for conveying away drippings, in machinery, from a drip-box arranged in connection with a cock or a valve, or to have a drip-cup applied to the valve of a water-eloset, the leakage from the valve falling into a saucer and thence flnding its way, through a hole, into the inside of the trunk ; that a valve on the floor at the foot of the trunk was old, and so was a valve attached to the trunk and below its top, and a valve above the top ; that itwas old to have, in connection with a valve, a drip-pan conducting the drip into the soil-pipe at the foot of the trunk, and also to have a valve on top of the trunk, and a provision, by means of a hollow arm, for conducting the drip into the trunk ; and that, in view of all this, the flrst claim of the Bartholomew patent cannot be held to cover the defendants' drip-cup arrangement. �But the evidence of the plaintiffs' expert as to two water- closet drip arrangements, respecting which the defendants introduced testimony, namely, that of Kirkup and the Scotch closet of Nicoll & Harrison, shows that they were nOt like either Carr's or the defendants*. In the Turner & Madden arrangements the devices were on the floor and the drip ran into the soil-pipe below the trunk. No arrangement is shown, before Bartholomew, in the same place as bis with reference to the other parts of the eloset, and to the work it bas to do, and to the supply-cock and to the drip it catches, and doing the same work, and catching the same drip, as bis does and as the defendants' does. There is nothing in the state of the art which requires such a construction to be given to the words "above the closet" as will not make the defendants' drip-box substantially above the closet, although not cast on the cover but on the side, near the top. There is the same operation of the same parts, acting in combination with each other, and attaining the same resuit. This is the testimony of the plaintiflfs' expert, and it is not contradicted. It must, ���# . ��� �
