Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/104

90 FEOSBAL BEPOBTEB. �■were made 15 years ago. It is insufficient to overcome the presnmp* tions which belong to the patent. �The question of infringement remains. The defendant, by various witnesses, testifies that it was the intention of the officers of the Com- pany not to incline the end-rails, and that their frames were con- structed with care and painstaking, so that they shonld not incline; and that if any inclination subsequently took place, it was owing to the shrinking or to the warping of the rails. Upon this hearing, tes- timony bas been given upon this point in addition to that which was introduced upon the hearing of the motion for preliminary injunc- tion, and I am impressed with the manner in which the witnessos state this part of the case. The end-rails of the frame, which were shown by the plaintiflf on both hearings, manifestly incline, so that the under side of the fabric does not rest upon the end-bars. This inclination existed when the exhibit was purchased at the furniture store, and it was not claimed upon the hearing of the motion that this was not a fair sample of the defendant's frames. An examina- tion shows that these rails incline because they do not fill the iron chair or standard. The defendant bas satisued me that it was not the intention of the general manager of the company to construct the rails so that the rails should thereafter incline. I have been in doubt about this piart of the case, but my conclusion is that there has been infringement. That is pro^ed by Exhibit 1. The extent of the infringement is to be ascertained by the master. �Let there be a decree against infringement of the first claim as construed, and of the third claim, and for an accounting. Question in regard to costs to be reserred ontil coming in of the master's report. ��� �