BPRING V, D0ME8TI0 SEWING-MACHINK CO. S07 �after-thought, worked into the otherwise completea lathe at some time subsequent to its original < completion and operation. This opinion is founded — First, upon the examination under a glass of the six needles, marked "Pernot needles, Ex. le,"which had been exhib- ited by Pernot, in a former suit, as the product of bis machine, and as proof that he had made upon the said machine needles with curved or rounded shoulders and sharp points, and which, the witness thought, gaTe unmistakable evidence of being finished by hand-tool- ing, both as to the shoulders and the points. And, seeondly, upon the striking differences in the execution of the work on different parts of the lathe; "all parts," says the witness, "being well formed, accu- rately fitted, and well finished, except the important bar, b, and its clamp-screws, c c. These are coarse, rude, and devoid of finish, and have all the characteristics of a subsequent addition and of a tempo- rary makeshift." And, thirdly, upon the conviction that the machine had been originally constructed for turning needles without points, and to a square shoulder, as shown by the presence of the diagonal set-screw, E, which could have no other purpose in connection with the organization of the lathe. He is strongly corroborated in all these particulars by the testimony of 0. S. Hosmer and Edwin Strain, gentlemen of long experience in the manufacture of sewing-machine needles, and whose cautious methods of testifying have not failed to make a favorable impression upon the mind of the court. �But the most remarkable evidence in regard to the Pernot machine came ont in the final examination of Alonzo Taylor and Joseph Bel- lows. These were first offered by the defendant as witnesses to prove the product of the lathe previous to the date of the Spring inven- tion. Taylor, in testifying for the defendant, said that he first saw the Pernot machine in 1855, and that needles were produced by it with rounded or tapering shanks. But when he was afterwards recalled by the complainants he stated that bis previous testimony had been given under a misapprehension of the matter in contro- versy ; that he thought the suit had been brought for the inf ringe- ment of a patent for a tapered shank needle, and not for a machine which could make one; that he always supposed that the taper- ing shanks of the needles made on the Pernot machine were turned and formed by hand-tooling ; that when he first saw the machine, in 1856, it had neither the wedge, a, nor bar, h, nor any other device which could be used for forming a tapering shank or sharp point on the needle. He is oonfirmed by Bellows, who teatifies to the alteration of and addition to the machine. He says that he M'ont ��� �
