€93 FEDERAL REPORTER. �be overthrown at the instance of Webb, or those in privîty with him, without clear evidence that the patent is void for the reasons now assigned. Such evidence I do not find in the case. On the contrary, after an examination of the "French mill," and a careful consideration of the affidavits, I have reached the conclusion that the Shepard invention •wa.8 not anticipated by the "French mill," or otherwise, and that his improvement is both new and useful. �I am of opinion that the complainant is entitled to the injunction moved for. Let a decree be drawn accordingly. ���Steobridge V. LiNDSAY, Sterritt & Co. �{Circuit Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. , 1880.) �Patent — Improvement m Coffeb Mills. �In Equity. �AcHEsoN, D. J. The bill in this case is founded upon let- ters patent, re-issue No. 7,683, dated March 27, 1877, granted to the complainant, Turner Strobridge, for an improvement in coflfee-mills. �The defendants are dealers in hardware at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and bring into the complainant's market, and sell, a coffee-mill made by Landers, Frary & Clark, of New Britain, Connecticut, which mill. the complainant alleges is an iûfringement of the iirst claim of his re-issued patent. This clause is in these words : "A coffee or similar mill hav- ing a detachable hopper and grinding shell, formed in a single piece and suspended within the box by the upper part of the hopper, or a flange thereon, substantially as and for the pur- pose specified." �The defences insisted on, at the argument of the case, may be reduced to two heads, viz. : First, that the mills manufac- tured by Landers, Frary & Clark, and sold by the defendants, do not infringe the complainant's said daim; second, that the patent is void for want of patentable invention. ����
