506 PEDEBAIi BEPORTEB. �It is insisted by the complainants : �(1) That their proofs in the present case sliow the falsity ot the testimony on which it is attempted to establish the existence of the Pernot machine, or, at least, that part of it embracing the mechanism which anticipates the Spiinœ patent anterior to the date of the complainants' invention. (2) That, eveu if its prier existence is admitted, the mechanism is not an anticipation of the specifications and claims of the Spring patent. �1. As to the first point, respecting the actual existence of the Per- not machine, it is a well-settled principle that the burden of proof is on the defendant. Pernot, the alleged inventor, testifies that he com- pleted and used it as early as the year 1853, for turning needlea, and that it was substantially in the same condition and contained the same mechanism for curving the shoulders and sharpening the points of the needles at the time of his examination as a witness in this case, as when it was iinished in 1853. �The claim of the Spring patent. is for the combination of a griping chuck, by which an article can be so held by one end as to present the other free to be operated upon with a rest preceding the cutting tool, when it is combined with a guide-cam or its equivalent, which modi- fies the movement of the cutting tool, all operating together for the purpose set forth. The distinguishing features of the patent are th& cams or formera for turning the curved shoulders and the points of the sewing-machine needles. �The patentees, in their specifications, state that the pattern, e\ which is adjustable by means of the set-screw, n',is pivoted in q, and serves to shape the shank, while the pattern, o', which is adjustable along the length of q, as well as outward from it, serves to form and shape the point. �Is there any mechanism found in the Pernot machine which pro- duces either of these resulta, and if so, at what time do the proofs show that it was first attached ? The curved or rounded shoulder to a needle made in this machine, is, doubtless, formed by the wedge, a, which operates to draw back the knife as it approaches the griping chuck; and Pernot, in his examination, atatcs that although he never pointed the needles in the practical use of his lathe, the mechanism was capable of such adjustment that the points could be readily turned. �We are then brought to the inquiry, whether the wedge, a, and the bar, b, were in the Pernot lathe prior to the Spring invention in j.857 ? The first witness upon this point is the complainants' expert, Hoadley. He considers the wedge, a, and the bar, b, an evident ��� �
