HOLMES V. PLAINVILLB MANDf'G 00. 767 �•witness say; i. e., it is mere hearsay. Mistakes of more or less im- portance constantly occur in the notes of stenographers, even of those ■who are most experienced and trustworthy ; and parties who procure testimony to be taken in this way ought to be held bound to procure its correctness to be authenticated by the signature of the witness, or be preoluded from using it, if objected to. This court, in U. S. v. Pings, i Fed. Eep. 714, suppressed depositions reduced to writing by the eounsel of one party in the absence of the other, on aecount of the abuses to which such a practice, if sanctioned, would be likely to lead. The allowance of depositions like the present are still more objectionable, and could not be sustained, even if there were no gen- erai order applicable to the subject. That there was considerable delay by the stenographer in furnishing to eounsel the transcript of bis notes is no excuse ; nor does the affidavit of the attorney show sufficient endeavors to find the witness, even if entire inability to pro- cure him would have fumished a sufficient reason for admitting the testimony, which I do not think it would. T^tt deposition should, therefore, be suppressed. ���Holmes and another v. Plainville Manuf'g Co. �Same v. Dunham Hosibry Co, �{Cireuit Court, D. Oonnectieut. December 16, 1881.) �3. Letthes Patent — Take-Ups — Beissues— New Mattbr — iNPBmoEMENT. �Reissued letters patent granted to George H. Holmes, June 25, 1878, for an improvement in take-ups for looms, are not invalid because broader than the original. They are not infringed, however. by tbn machine used by the defendant, as motion ia not transmitted in the two maoniues by the same or equivalent means. �In Equity. �Charles E. Mitchell, for plaintiffs. �Esek Cowen, for defendants. �Shipman, D, J. These two cases are eaeh founded upon reissued letters patent to George H. Holmes, dated June 25, 1878, for an im- provement in "take-ups" for looms. The original patent was granted August 10, 1869. The plaintiffs are the owners of the patents. The defences are the invalidity of the reissue, because it contains "new matter" and non-infringement, if the patent is construed by the court to be restrieted to the invention as originally claimed. The original patent was for an improved "take-up" in looms for ��� �
