Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/925

suTEo i;. moll. 9H �togetlier, by taking hold oi any part of it, as the patented structure can be. The resuit is attained of separating the threads into more skeins than one, and of allowing of the convenient separation of the skeins, and there is the continuons winding. But there is nothing •which can be called "a card" in the sense of the plaintiffs' card, and in the sense of the description in the original specification, nor are there any sections of a card. �It is shown by the testimony of McCauley that it was old to put up cord by winding a given length on a notched piece of board, and then eontinuing the cord to another notched piece of board, and winding an equal length of the cord on that, and so on to the number of a dozen; and that he had known of this being done for at least 20 years iu New York, with Butler & PitMn, 356 Broadway, who subse- quently became Butler, Pitkin & Co., 476 Broadway. It is shown by the testimony of John E. Read, a member of the firm of Howard, Sanger & Co., of New York, dealers in fancy gonds, and who h as been in that business for 28 years continuously, that for over 20 years past he bas known of fishing lines put up on notched boards and con- tinued from one board to another. The testimony of these two wit- nesses was objected to on the record as "not within the pleadings." What this was intended to mean is not further stated in the record. It is too indefinite to be regarded. In argument it is contended that the testimony of McCauley and that of Read are inadmissible, because knowledge by them is not set up in the answer. But the answer sets up that the patented invention was before known by Edwin T. Butler, of "Butler & Pitkin, in business at No. 356 Broadway, New �York city," and by "Howard & Sanger, iu business at No. Bi^oad- �way, New York city;" and that .tjhe patented method of having one continuons thread in skeins of two and more, substantially as de- scribed in the reissue, was known to the following persons, and at the following times and places, tp-wit : "Butler, Pitkin & Co., 356 Broad- way, New York city, more than 10 years past ; Howard, Sanger & Co., 462 Broadway, New York city, more than 10 years past." �The statute (Rev. St. § 4920) does not require the names of wit- nesses to be given, but only the names of those who knew of the thing, and where they can be found, and where and by whom the thing was used. Aside from the want of point in the objection stated on the record, the notice in the answer was. sufficient to admit the testimony of the two witnesses. The testimony of McCauley was also objected to, on the record, as immaterial; and that of Read as irrelevant. The testimony was material and relevant as tending to showthat tli-j ��� �