WASHBUBN at MOEN MANUFIG co. 22. GRINNELL WIRE G0. 23
to be worn. They are known to the trade as “pebbles for spectacles
rough;" although the proof also shows that upon an order for peb-
bles for spectacles, whether the word "rough" is used or not, goods
like these would be sent. Upon the question of fact, the proof is so
clear that these goods are what are commercially known as "Brazil
pebbles," or pebbles for spectacles, that I can have no doubt they
come strictly and readily within the designation of this class of goods
in the free-list. They were, therefore, improperly classed as "man-
ufactures of glass," and made dutiable at 45 per cent. ad valorem.
The plaintid is entitled to recover the duties paid under protest in
this case.
Wisnnomx & Moms Mimosa Co. and another v. Guruunnn Wmm Co.
and others.
ii (Circuit Oourt, 8. D. Iowa, Cl D. May 26, 1885.) V
1. Pnnnrs ron Iuvnnrrons-Gmnnnn Bmsnn-Winn Fr:ncn—I¤vnnrrow.
The patent granted in November, 1874, to J. W. Glidden, for barbed wire,
examined, and held valid. ._
2. SAME-Aurrcrrsrron.
On examination of the evidence in this case, and a comparison of the Free-
man, Merrill, Stone, Schone, and Delhi Fair fences with the Glidden patent,
held, that the Glidden patent was not anticipated thereby, and is valid.
3. SAME-—MAonmns Fon Maxme Brennan WIRE—INF1{[NGEMENT.
On comparison of the Putnam and Penny machines for making barbed wire,
held, that the Putnam machine is not infringed by l:’enn_y’s invention.
In Equity. Opinion on Hnal hearing.
Qjield ef: Towtcs, Coburn et Thacker, and B. K. T/zurston, for c0m·
plainants.
Wright, Cummins c6 Wright and Munday at Evans, for defendants.
Bnnwna, J. I may say that this is one of the hardest cases I have
ever had to try. It has been difficult for me to arrive at a conclusion
on the primary question, and though I have given it a great deal of
examination and study, my mind does not rest with any satisfaction
on the result. That primary question is this: Is this Glidden barbed
wire really entitled to a patent? Is there in it enough of invention
to make it patentable, or is it simply a mere matter of mechanical
skill? Perhaps a brief historical statement may be in order. The
iirst barbed-wire patent was issued in July, 1867, to Hunt, and was
for this form, [referring to model,] which, as you see, consists of a
mere serrated wheel. The next was to Lucian B. Smith, also in 1867, _
and for this, [referring to model,] in which the barb is like the hub of
a wheel with spokes. That was followed by one to Kelly, in 1868, and
covers this, [referring to model,] in which, as you· see, the barb is a
diamond plate, the lateral wire passing through a hole punchedin
the middle. Mr. Kelly, in his specifications, also suggested that this