V ·‘ = FEDERAL REPORTER. » i
wedge. Hehrst pounded the staples firmly onto the wire, then sepa-
rated the two extremities of the staple by means of the wedge, and
by use of the hammer upon the wedge coiled these two ends of the
_ staple around the fence wire. Prior to putting on these staples, some
of the posts in that corner being rotten, he substituted some new ones.
The fence wire, instead of being fastened by staples to the posts, was
run through holes bored in them. His brother giving up this tract,
Mr. Stone, desiring to use a portion of the fence for the purpose of
building a fence from the railroad track eastward, and so as to inclose
a pasture adjoining the track and opposite his own residence, in 1873
took some 20 rods of this fence, with the posts, away from this north-
east corner up to this pasture and made the cross-fence. A portion
of the wire from this cross-fence was produced as an exhibit, and,
with the staples coiled around the wire, presented substantially the
same structure as the Glidden fence. His testimony was positive as
to the identity of the exhibit with this cross-fence, and as a part of
the fence made in 1871 and removed in 1873 from the Bidwell tract.
This, of course, presents a very strong showing of prior invention.
In support of his testimony, the defendant introduced the testi-
’ mony of sundry witnesses to the effect that in 1871 and 1872 they
saw certain barbs on the Bidwell fence, and also to the fact that this
cross—fence was placed adjacent to the railroad track in 1873. Fur-
ther, Mr. Stone, having testified to placing some of these coiled sta-
. ples on other parts of the fence around the Bidwell tract, a woman,
occupying the tract south thereof, testified that in 1871 she was in
~ the habit of taking her child, crawling under the wires of this fence,
going up unto a little rise and sitting there with her child; that she
noticed these barbs upon the fence; also the testimony of a witness
that, riding home one night with his brother-in-law, a portion of
this wire fence got entangled with the wheels of their conveyance
and was carried home, and on examination the next morning they
discovered these barbs. As against these two last items of testimony
was the testimony of the brother-in-law, squarely contradicting, ex-
- plaining how a portion of the wire was carried home, and stating
that there were no barbs on it; also of the lessor of the tract occupied
by the woman above named, tending to show that the lease under
which she was occupying terminated very early in 1871, and rendering ·
it very improbable that prior thereto, in that season, she could ever
have gone into the Bidwell tract in the manner or for the purpose sho
stated. Further, the complainant introduced the testimony of wit-
nesses familiar with the Bidwell tract, who denied the presence of
any barbs, of the parties who leased and-occupied it the year after
- Mr. Bidwell gave it up, and who testified that the fence at this north-
east corner was still complete, and that no part had been removed;
of the section boss on the railroad, who testified that this cross-fence
was not placed there until after 1876; of other witnesses working or
T residing on adjacent tracts, who gave similar testimony.