loS FEDERAL REPORTER. �So far, therefore, as the possibility of lightenîng the lower part of a spindle depends upon cutting off a piece of the upper part, it does not flow from any invention of Pearl's. When this fact was shown to Judge Shepley, in the Coventry Mills case, he was still of opinion that Pearl had a combination of sufficient utility to support a patent, and he granted an in- junction to restrain the use of a spindle and bobbin which clearly contained the invention. This combination, as I under- stand it, is of a spindle with a shortened tip, and a bobbin "with a central adhesive bearing, the Middlebury bobbin hav- ing such a bearing only at its lower end. From the remarks of the judge when the Ashton spindle, whioh is somewhat shorter than its bobbin, was produced in court, I should un- derstand that the bobbin of Pearl must have two chambers ; that is to say, it must be reamed out above as well as below, Bo as to make a bobbin at once light and strong. If it has no upper ehamber it would seem to be anticipated by the Ashton. I do not venture to reverse the decision of Judge Shepley, in upholding the patent of Pearl, as thus understood ; a de- cision which he assures us was arrived at after very careful consideration. The spindle and bobbin of Sawyer do not infringe this combination. The theory of Sawyer's improve- ment was that a saving of power would be best obtained by a change in the bearings of the old spindle. The disturbing forces, according to his view, are the pull of the belt on the whirl, the pull of the yarn on the bobbin, and the centrifugal force of the whirling structure, which includes the spindle, the bobbin, a^d the yarn on the bobbin. Sawyer's opinion îs that the obstructing force of the pull of the belt is dimin- iflhed by shortening the but; that the other two forces are diminished by shortening the bobbin and spindle together, and very slightly, if at ail, by shortening the spindle within the bobbin ; that the shortening below is made practicable by a change in the bearing or bearings above; that the true rela- tion between these parts, above and below, is one of length between bearings, and not of weights. This theory I belle ve to be true in the main. The evidence seems to me to prove that there is not such a close rc'^fition between the weiffht of ����
