Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/483

GOTTFBIED V. MILLER. 471 �United States. In those courts the extent of the rule is to permit the jury to compare writings lawfully in evidence for some other purpose. It has never been permitted to introduce writings for the mare pur- pose of enabling the jury to institute a comparison of writings. To permit the practice here sought to be established would be to permit the defendant to make evidence for himself . �The last point made is that error was committed in refusing to per- mit an expert in handwriting to say whether the original letter put in evidence by the government, and the copy of it made by the accused in the presence of the jury, were in the same handwriting. Here was no error. It was not shown that the expert knew the defendant's handwriting, and whether the two letters were in the same hand- writing was immaterial, except upon the assumption that because the copy of the letter was made by the defendant it was in his usual handwriting, — an assumption by no means justifiable by the circum- stances under which the copy was made. �The motion is accordingly denied. ���GOTTFRIED V. MiLLBE. �(Oircuit Court, E. D. Wiaeoniin. May Term, 1881.) �1. Letters Patent— Piiching Baubels — Infkingbment. �The transfers of the title to the patent granted to Goltfried & Holbeck Maj; 3, 1864, for a new and improved mode of pitching barrels, traced from the transfers of the original patentees to the transfer of date Decemher 15, 1879, from Btromberg to €k)ttfried. Held, so far as here shown, that Gottf rled's pres- ent source of title is this transfer from Btromberg of date December 15, 1879 ; and that, therefore, he cannot prosecute a suit for infringement against one to whom Stromberg sold a machine, November 25, 1872, containing the pat- ented improvement, because privj- to Stromberg's prior grant ; as Stromberg cannot prosecute a suit against such prior grantee neither can he. �In Equity. �Banning e Banning, for complainant. �Flanders e Bottum, for defendant. �Dyer, D. J., (orally.) I have not been able to prepare an opinion in this case, but as counsel desire to know what are the grounds of the judgment of the court, I will state them. This is a bill in equity to restrain the infringement of a patent, No. 42,580, granted to the ��� �