PEOK, STOW 4 WlIiCOX 00. V. LINDSAY. 691 �latter made application for letters patent, ont of which the above-mentioned interference grew. In the Webb applica- tion occurred the f ollowing statements : �"These mille have usually been made with a wood box and top, with the hopper and runner made of metal and secured to the top. The securing device is necessarily screws or bolts, and these, after a little use, are liable to became loose, and require constant resetting or repairs. The object of this invention is, principally, to overcome this difficulty, and it consists in constructing the top of a box mill of cast metal, and in one and the same piece with the hopper. �"By this construction of the top the usnal securing devices between the top and the hopper are avoided, and the cost of producing the hopper and top in one piece is less than con- structing the hopper separately and attaching it to the wood top. �"Again, this construction allows the completion of the whole grinding apparatus independent of the box or wood portion, as the whole grinding apparatus is practically made a part of the top,and,that completed, it only remains to seoure that single part of the wood box ; and aecomplished as it is, in this case, by transverse screws or rivets, the strain upon them in grinding is very much less than on the usual ver- tical securing devices." �It is not pretended that at the time this application was made Webb and his assignees, Landers, Frary & Clark, were not perfectly fainiliar with the "French mill." �The advantages set forth in such detail and with such force, in the above-quoted statements from the Webb application, are shown aU to exist in the Shepard invention, the priority of which, over Webb, bas been finally adjudicated. Now, while the decision in favor of Shepard in the interference proceeding may not be conclusive against the defendants upon the questions of anticipation and patentable novelty now raised, yet, under the circumstances, great weight, I think, should be given to the action of the patent office in granting letters patent to the complainant. The prima facie case thereby established in favor of the complainant ought not to ����
