688 FEDERAL RErOBTER. �smoothly upon the last by reason of the flap pieces, and it ■was also desirable to line the flaps or ear pieces with a lighter material than that used for the shoe proper, so that they could be folded smoothly around the ankle. Novelty and patentability are not denied. I do not understand that any substantial defence is attempted to be made to the charge of infringement of the first claim. �Let there be a decree for an injunction and an accounting. ���The Peok, Stow & Wilcox Co. v. Linbsat, Steeeitt & Co. {Circuit Court, W. D. Pennaylvania. , 18B0. �Pa-S^NT— PhIVIKS to IkTBEFBKENCE— IMPIIOVBMEKT m COFFEB & SpICB �MixjiS. �In Equity. �AoHEsoN, D. J. This is a motion for an injunction on re-issued letters patent No. 8,866, dated August 19, 1879, granted to the oomplainant, assignee of Amoa Shepard, for an improvement in coffee and spice mills, �The defendants are hardware merchants at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and sell coffee mills manufactured by Landers, Frary & Clark, whieh mills, it is alleged, infringe the first claim of said patent. �It clearly appears, both from the af&davits in the case and by an inspection of the Landers, Frary & Clark mill, that it em- bodies the first claim of the said re-issued patent. This claim is in these words : "In a box mill a metal hopper and flange, said flange projecting laterally at or near the top of the hop- per, so as to form the cover of and means of attachment to the wooden box, in combina'tion with a hinged hopper cover and grinding mechanism, substautially as and for the purpose set forth." �The invention relates particularly to that style of box mills whioh bave the bulk of the hopper located below the box top. The metalliç hopper is made with a wide £ange projecting ����
