ALLIS U. STOWELL. 805 �cessful use. It is contended by counsel for complainant that this fact is not established in this case. �We cannot, upon careful consideration of the testimony, agree with counsel that the testimony of the witness Eobinson, who is one of the witnesses for the defendant, should be entirely disregarded by the court. It seems to be corroborated by other testimony in the case. He is corroborated by the presence of the device which it is claimed anticipates the Selden dog, and which is produced in court, and that is a very powerful circumstance influencing the mind of the court in coming to a conclusion upon that question. Then we have also the account book which was kept at the time this device was sold, as far back as 1865 and 1866, which contains entries showing such sales. And so we conclude that the case does not stand alone upon the testimony of the witness Eobinson. Then, further, we think that the testimony and the device itself, as it is exhibited to us, show that it was capable of practical use. �I may say here that at the first hearing I had not a little difficulty in determining this very question relative to the Selden dog; and it seems to us, upon a comparison of the devices, and upon the best light that we can extract from the testimony that is now submitted, that the testimony is quite as strong that the Duval device is one that could be practically and successfully used, as was the testimony in the original case that the Selden device could be so used. So, with- out elaborating upon the case, or attempting the delivery of an opinion in extenso, we content ourselves with announcing our con- clusion, which is, that these devices, which have been submitted as anticipating the Selden dog, should be held to anticipate it, and therefore that the Selden patent must be declared invalid. �I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice Hablan concurs in this conclusion. �V.9,no.5— 20 ��� �
