Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/241

VAT. CA5-BBAEE 6H0E CO. 0. S., L. & N. B. CO. 227 �It is true that when defendant's shoe is Iiung loosely by the devis it bas a rocking movement like that of the plaintiff'a, but when pressed forciby against the wheel the sole accom- modates itself to the shoe and not to the periphery of the wheel, and consequently no rocking movement is produced ; or, if there be any at ail, it is so slight as to bave no perceptible effect. The fact that the sole of the defendant's shoe is worn principally upon one side, is strong evidence to show that it has not accommodated itself to the bevel of the wheel. Nor am I satisfied that, conceding that defendant's shoe has a lateral rocking motion, it is produced by the means employed by the plaintiff or by a mechanioal equivalent thereto. It is uselesB to set forth here at length the difference between the two devices, as no description we could give would be com- prehended without an actual inspection of the models. The principal distinction between the two is that in the plaintiff's patent the sole is attached to the shoe only at one end by a boit passing through a lug of the sole and two corresponding lugs of the shoe, the devis by which the shoe is supported being attached to this boit. The other end of the sole is not attached to the shoe at ail, but has a pyramidal projection, fitting into a corresponding socket in the sole, by which the latter is prevented from escaping entirely, and the lateral motion is produced. In defendant's device the sole contains a lug.at either end fitting to two corresponding lugs in the shoe, and is f astened at one end by a boit and at the other by a devis. I am not satisfied that one is the mechanical equiv- alent of the other. �As this finding disposes of both of plaintiff's claims, an order will be entered dismissing the bîU. ����