WOVEN WIRE MATTRESS CO. v. SIMMONS. 729 �I construe his opinion, he mainly rests his judgment upon those features of the infringing device before him in finding infringement. �The bed bottom made by the defendants in the case at bar has been described. The exhibit in evidence shows a slight inclination of the end rails. But the proofs very satisfac- torily establish the fact that sueh was not its original con- struction, and that in the bed bottoms which the defendants manufacture the end rails are made to rest squarely on the side rails and without any inclination of the former. The testimony that such was the construction originally of the exhibit in evidence is corroborated by the fact that the exhib- ited bed bottom was made in 1879, has since been moved from place to place and used as an exhibit in other litiga- tion, and the signs of wear and tear are evident in the fact that the different parts are considerably out of the Unes of proper adjustment. This, I think, must be plain to the eye of any meehanic ; and, upon the testimony and an inspection of the exhibit itself, I am of the opinion that the slight incli- nation of the end rails now visible is attributable to the strain of the fabric, the shrinkage of the wood, and generally to wear and tear. Since the end rails of the defendants' bed bottom are not placed above the side rails so as not to come in contact with them, but rest directly upon the side rails, it might be a close question ^hether there is in the defendants' device the elevation of the end rails above the side rails -which is intended to be described in the complainant's patent. Cer- tainly, the angle irons of the defendants' frame, in a material respect, do not serve the purpose of the complainant's stand- ards, for the latter are adjusted outside the rails and hold the end rails above the side rails so that they do not touch, and 80 that with the inclination of the end rails the under side of the fabric cannot rest on the end rails. �Whatever might be the view taken, if the only question was whether the defendants' frame shows the elevation of the end rails above the side rails exhibited in the complainants' draw- ings and model, or its equivalent, or if it was whether the ��� �
