·42 V   . nnbonrmn. ‘
’ v. Bonebrake, 108 U. S. 66, 2 Sup. Ct- Rep. 351;?.¢Wooster v. Thornton,
26 Fed. Rep. 274; Bridges v. Sheldon, 7 Fed. Rep.·17; Greene v. Bishop,
. 1 Cliil`. 186; Donnell v. ifnsurarwe C0.`, 2 ~Sum. 366; Mason v. Crosby, 3
Woodb. & M. 268. ` i   ” V i
· The principal contention arises over the hndingof the master that the
"iiber white" used by thedefendant was talc. The complainant cannot
succeed upon the theory that "’dber white" was an equivalent for talc,
{crit was not known at the dateof the patent. If, however, it was talc
in fact, the principal obstacle in the complainant’s path is swept away.
Recognizing its importance the complainant has bent every energy to
establish the affirmative, and the defendant the negative, of this propo-
sition. i As this is largely a scientific question, the situation may be well
illustrated by placing in juxtaposition an epitome of the views of the
expert witnesses, each beingto some· extent corroborated, and to some
extent contradicted, by other testimony, and by collateral iacts and cir-
cumstances. · V i l l r
Brqjfi Qhanoller,for_thecp1npZainam.t.. Dr. Ledou:z:,fonthe,defendant. ·
_ Ia. i§a.rniliar with the commercial It is utterly unreasonable, if not im-
urticlgxlrnown as "£iber,white." It is possible to evengassnme that "1iber
talcé ‘I‘*kiiow“flber white" to be talc `wl1ite" is talc, because it does not
_ by looking at it. It has the structure * correspond with one of the thirty-
of talc; it has the fracture of talc; it »¤ six analysesofitalc shown in Dana’s
has the lustre of talc.;; it has .the·unc— ,:Mineralogy; ori zwith any recognized
tuous feel of talc,—and no other min- specimen of talc. It contains more
eral- possesses all these properties at alumina, .more lime, more·;ma,nganese
thesairie time;" Taken', together they than anyof them. "Fiber white" is
constitute thamineralogioal identity fibrous. Tale is not iibrons. "Fiber
of‘talc’J·"‘There ·is‘ no other mineral [white," when *considered· from a
with which you would be liable to con-M strictlymineralogical view, or chem-
found ·it.~ —Seczmdly, if 1. have exame *ically,,or from a-microscopic or other
ined the ulverized mineral under the , personal examination,cannotpossibly
microscogmand, the powder has the be talc. Iam conlirmed in my opin-
appearance"‘of talc. i `Thirdly. Anal- ion that "dber white" is nottalc by
ysis ishowsit tdbe talc. I am satis-` my recent investigations, and by my
fied:. ‘therefore,= that this rmineral is l failure to ilnd any samples of nbrous
ta.1c,= asit possessesnall theirphysical talc by themost diligent search and
a.nd.chemicnl,properties·0f talc.;,;.. inquiry. V , r t
_ It was theduty, of the master gto decide- between these two opinions.
He diddecide that "_iiber whitefl was talc, and; he had- so decided when
this court.(.Well·ing v. La Batntstqora) said:, j   ,
` “If tlie**maste'1" has found that Fliber white" is talc, although not dealt in
eommerciallyby that nameflie   determined a disputed questionroffact
upcrrwhichsthe—evidence.is¥·uery conflicting. * -* * The report of,a
master will not beset asideastp Jnatters bffact upon which the evidence. is
doubtiulr or the inferences tuncertain, much less where his conclusions are
reachedupon; conflicting tsstiinoppape involve. to a greater or less degree,
the c1‘edibil_ity‘of the witnesses;"*   ‘ _ ` ‘ ' e · it
» If the iinding of the master upon this question were against the evi-
dence, the?cou1·t-sliould not hesitate to set itaside; but it is thought,