PEASIi r. APPIiETOK 00. 153 ���Peari. fine! others v. The Appleton Company and others. �Peael and others ». Thb Hamiltoh MANUPAoroBiNa Cou- pant and others. �(C^cuH Court, D. MastaehictetU. July 17, 1880.) �1. Patent— RB3SSDK No. 6,036.— The second olaim of relssne No. 8,038 for imi^oTeinents in ring-spinning machines held to be infringed by patent No. 113,576. �S. Drawino — Amkrpicbiit — Bet. St. | 4916. — ^Drawings of a machin* patent need not be amended hj the model in acoordance with section 4916 of the Keviaed Statutes, wher* such amendment does not aSect the claims of the patent. �In Equity. �LowELL, C. J. The length of this record of more than 3,000 ■printed pages, besides the labor involved in its examination, makes it not improbable that I may hare overiooked, or for- gotten, some evidence which one party or the other may, con- aider important. I have studied it to the best ol my ability. �The contest is mainly between the Pearl and the Sawyer epindles, with their bobbins, as patented and used in ring spinning. The former, patented in re-issue No. 6,036, Sep- tember 1, 1874, was sustained by Judge Shepley in Pearl y. Ocean Mills, 11 Oiï. Gaz. 2. The same learned judge after- wards granted an injnnction in Pearl v. Coventry Company, in Ehode Island, and a copy of the arguments, with the judge's full running commentary, has been furnished me. From these sources we can discover what a judge of great experience in patent cases, as well as of great natural aptitude for such investigations, thought of the validity and construction of tha plaintifEs' patent. The issue of infringement is wholly dif- ferent from any with which he was coneerned. �Pearl's original patent, No. 102,587, May 5, 1870, was entitled an "Improvement in Bobbins for Spinning, " which is shown by the specification to be ring spinning, and it describes the old form of bobbins as being made with a single chamber^ or bore, extending through the bobbin, with bearings to grasp the sTjindle. called in the record "adhesive" bearings, at either ����