¶1In Equity.
¶2J. G-. Manaban and G. H. Roberts, for complainants.
¶3John R. Bennett, for defendant.
¶5This ease was argued and submitted upon the same proof as the case of this Same Complainant v. Deere & Mansar Manuf’g Co., ante, 783, and the reasons which led me to the conclusion that Hiero was no infringement in the first case are equally applicable to tins case. The bill is therefore dismissed for want of equity.