American Sewage Disposal Comapany vs. the City of Pawtucket. (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1904 edition. Excerpt: ...and disapproved by him; so zf " chemical precipitation" must here mean precipitation by added chemicals, the construction of the phrase would be that patentee merely meant to suggest a well known use which rould be made of a settling tank. As defendant admitted below, this sentence was not in the original, but "clearly originated with McClintock's suggestion to the Andover committee that if Glover didn't get his tank action the tanks would be useful for this purpose." (R. 499, xQ. 81.) (3) If " sedimentation or chemical precipitation " refers to the chemical action of putrefaction, then the sentence suggests that such tank may itself become the putrefaction tank in connection with and so be the "primary bed." It is clear that the sentence does not imply that the " primary beds " of the patent are not intentionally putrefaction beds; but merely suggests a prior tank for mere settling, or addition of chemicals; or that if such plain tank be operated, as at Brentwood, as a sufficient putrefaction tank, then it would in such ease take the place of--become another form of--the beds a, or a' of the patent drawing, or be used in connection with these. But plainly a prior tank for any one of t/zese t/zree uses is not described as essential but as optional, and is not claimed; and if none is present, what then? No mere " settling tank" accompanied Glover's cesspools, his Andover plans, or his Brentwood plant. But to a plant wherein the sewage is not detained for either mere "settling" or for precipitation by chemicals (Glover's first patent, Andover, Brentwood, or defendant's plant), but wherein the "primary beds" are charged direct from the sewer, t/c1's...