916 PEDKRAIi REPORTER. �that sheet metal barbs are eut so as to present more than two points when wound arôund the fence wire, or interlaced between the strands, make them any less an infringement of Glidden's device or relieve them of liability to Hunt. �We, therefore, corne to the conclusion that complainants have the right to the relief asked by their bills; the principles ■we have laid down, in our estimation, fuUy covering the con- troverted questions in ail the cases before us. Decrees may be prepared finding that defendants infringe, and referring the cases to the master to take account of damages and profits. �Blodgett, D. J., concurred. ���White and others ». Lbb. �{Circuit Court, D. Moesachusetta. December 30, 1880.) �i., LiciJNSKE — Plba ts Bas. — A Hcensee cannot, by plea in bar, ;raiss sucb issues as are usually made in a,nawer to a suit for the infringe- ment of the patent. �In Ee[xiity. �James E. Maynadier,îoT <iom.\>\?k\xi^rïiB. �George L. Boberts e Bros., îoiAeïendant. �IiôwEhh, 0. J. In this case I decided that the bill, upon its face, -vras wanfing in equity, because it undertook to treat a licenSee as an infriager, without showing a renuneiation of the license, Wkite v. Lee, S Ped. Eep. 222. The complain- ants have now amended their bill, and charge that the de- fendant has not .furnished the statements and made the payments agreed upon between them, and praying that the defendant may be required to account for ail shoes which he has màdj cohtaiuing the patented improvements, or any material part thereof. Only one of the two patents men- tioned in the lease, or license, is in controversy in this suit. �The defendant pleads in bar, admitting that he took a licensej or "lease," under the original patent, No. 190,655, but alleging that the re-issue, No. 8,536, now sued on> was issued without his knowledge or consent ; that by the terma ����
