LINDBAY V. STEIK. 915 �proved as to its date of publication, and is not set up in the answer. Independently of this, it is not olear what the thing shown in it is, or how such thing is to be used. From what can be made ont it is liable to thesame objections as defendant's exhibit 3, requiring the fabric to be forced into a narrow opening, and requiring increased shortening to free the fabric, and having no clamping jaws. As to the exhibits, Furness and Furness No. 3, no original article actually made more than two years before April 9, 1878, is produced. The question as to the time when any sleeve supporters of the kind were made and sold rests wholly on the unaided memory of Mr. Furness, and, in view of all the evidence, it must be held that the defence as to the Furness sleeve supporter is not established. Irrespective of this, it is not at all clear that the Furness exhibits embrace the plaintiff's invention, or will practically accomplish the recuits which the plaintiff's supporter will accomplish. None of the prior articles or patents anticipate the invention of the plaintiff, and none of the defences considered are established. �It appears that the patented article is one of great utility, and bas found a ready market, as compared with any prior structures. Un- der the plaintiff's authority, from 850,000 to 1,150,000 pairs of his supporters have been sold during 1878, 1879, and 1880, and there have been infringments. The article combines these points of ad- vantage: It does not compress the arm; it does not require adjust- ment of length for arms of different sizes ; it does not require pre- vious preparation of the garment by putting on buttons or making eyelet holes at either end; it can be used to support cuffs and atiff articles on their edges ; it can be applied by one hand ; it is secured without perforating the garment; it is not pulled off by a slight strain ; it does not require to be pulled lengthvrise to release its hold. It bas superseded older articles, and is largely recognized by the public and licensees as a useful invention. AU these matters are very persuasive in favor of its patentability. Smith v. Goodyear Den- tal Vulcanite Co. 93 U. S. 486, 495. �The defendant has sold two structures, No. 1 and No. 2. No. 2 is identical with the plaintiff's in all substantial particulars. It is a sleeve supporter formed of a short piece of elastic webbing, with a clasp at each end. Each clasp is composed of two jawed levers piv- oted together, with a spring between them which closes the jaws automatically, and the jaws are opened by pressing together the tails of the levers. Each jaw has across its end teeth or projections, which take into corresponding indentations in the end of the other ��� �
