BEIBERT CYLINDER 01'IBCUP co. v. MICHIGAN LUBRrcATOR 00. 33
der section 5209, although the act falls within the provisions of that
section. With reference to such suggestion it issufiicient to say that if
it be conceded that a falsification of the books of a national bank, com- '
mitted under such circumstances as to amount to a forgery, could not
be punished under section 5209, yet such concession cannot avail the
defendant on demurrer, for the reason that the demurrer admits the
facts pleaded in the indictment; and as the offense is there stated, it
clearly did not amount to a forgery. In re Windsor, 6 Best & S. 522,·
10 Cox, Crim. Cas. 118; State v. Young, 46 N. H. 266; 1 Bish. Crim.
Law} § 586. l
I think the demurrer should be overruled, and it is so ordered.
SEIBEBT CYLINDER Orr.-Cnr Co. v. Mrcmeau Lumzrcsron Co.
' r SAME v. Gases et nl. - i
V (Oirenit Uowrt, E. D. Michigan. February 8, 1888.)
PATENTS ron. INvEnTxoN—ArrL1osT1oN ron INJUNCTION—SUBTAINED. PATENT—
EVIDENCE T0 Ovmrrruow Pnnsuurrron or- Vsmnrrr.
Upon an application for a preliminary injunction in an action for infringe-
ment of a patent, the validity of which has been sustained in three former
suits, defendant, a witness and party in one of the former suits. corroborated
by one other witness, testified that a machine identical with the one used by
him was perfected and in use more than two years prior to the issuance of
plaintiffs patent, but admitted that he did not apply for a patent for more
than nine years after perfecting his invention, and the evidence tended.to
show that the invention as patented by him differed essentially from the one
originally .used. Held; that this testimony not having been introduced inthe
former suits, does not establish prior invention and use beyond a reasonable
doubt, so as to overcome the presumption arising from the issuance of plain-
tiifs patent, supported by three adj udications in his favor.
In Equity. _ On motion to dissolve an injunction, and motion for ine
junction. ~ ’ ‘ 2
On motions for injunctions under the Gates "Sight-Feed Lubricator Pate
ent, No. 138,243, of April 29, 1873. An interference proceeding was
had in the patent-ofiice, in 1880, between Parshall and others, who are
strangers tothese suits. The record in the interference proceeding was
stipulated into the case of Oil-Oup Co. v. Dubrieator O0., 10 Fed. Rep.
677, in which the patent was sustained on final hearing. Subsequently,
new defenses having arisen, a suit was commenced under this patent
against William Burlingame, the agent of the Detroit Lubricator Co.,
and counter-suits were cornmencedgby the Detroit Lubricator Co., against
. the vendees of the complainant. The prior proceedings in the patent-
oiiice andin the Phillips Case were stipulated into this Burlingame Case.
Parshall was again examined, and his alleged anticipation further in-
quired into. This case was argued at length, and taken under advisement,
and, having been held under advisement for seven months, was settled,
v.34r·*.no.1——3 _