216 FEDBBAL EEPOBTEB. �the butts of the needle to lift the end of the swing cam up to free the latch, the yarn carrier hàd been adapted to efïect the same object; and to throw down the swing cam a simple weight had been attached to the end thereof and used for the purpose. �It is quite obvions that theee changes are mereiy equiva- lents of the complainant's devices, and that their use is an infringement on the claim of his patents. �2. As to the want of novelty, Among the large number of patents which the defendant exhibited to prove the laek of novelty, it is remarkable that many of them are younger than the complainants', and there is no evidence that the date of the alleged inventions was earlier than the date of the respective patents. �At the hearing the counsel of the defendant seemed to rely chiefly upon three machines, which he produced, and which are known as the Lamb machine, the Leech machine, and the Franz & Pope machine. They were exhibited as show- ing machines made in accordanee with letters patent of prior date to some of the patents of the complainant, and as antic- ipating his inventions. �The defendant, on his cross -examination, admits that the Lamb machine is not circular, but has a straight bed for the needles and cams, and that it cannot make a circular web without using both sets of needles and cams. �In reference to the Franz & Pope machine the defendant proved, on the cross-examination of the comjjlainant, that the complainant in fact made the identical model which accom- panied their application for letters patent as early as the latter part of the year 1867, or the beginning of 1868. �As to the Leach machine: Mr. Leach, also, was in the employ of the complainant at the time he made his model for his patents, and the date of his patents is long after the date of the complainants.* �I am of the opinion, also, that the defendant has failed in his defence of want of novelty, and there must be a decree for the complainant. ����
