163 FEDERAL REPORTER. �tïmony is brief, but I think its weight is with the complain- ant. Both Kuhn and Davy Beem to be intelligent witnesses, and give satisfactory reasons why certain articles, which are acknowledged to be the product of the defendant's manufac- tory, infringe the complainant's patents. �The xast-named witness, taking Exhibit E, which is a boit hook and two terrets, made and sold by the defendant corpo- ration, said that they infringed the three claims of the three patents "in having a raised or oval center, with a depressed Beam or grooTe on each edge, and a turned-up, solid metallie edge; are of precisely the same design, and undoubtedly were made to imitate goods manufactured under the complainant's several patents." Tbis testimony is confinned by the eye- eight. The articles made and sold by the defendant appear, on inspection, to be the same as those made and sold by the complainant under bis patents, except in the onecase they are covered with vulcanized rubber, and in the other with leather. The only contradiction to it is the evidence of Mr. Albright, the president of the defendant company, and his deniai of the infringement seems to be based upon the idea that the patents of the complainant cannot be infringed without the use of leather, needles, and stitchea. The defend- ant adopts the methods and designs of the patents, but cov- ers the article with rubber rather than leather, and this is done in the face of the statement of the patentee in his speci- fications "that the covering may be made of any material, whether elastic or non-elastic, and may be applied to any and every kind of harness trimmings in precisely the same man- ner rubber may be used for such trimmings." �Under the proofs there must be judgment on the plea in favor of complainant, with costs. ����
