aee FEDEBAB BBfQBTEIt. �the second bas braokets to set up the lantern against a wall. As desigias, therefore, they cannot be held to anticipate Bur- ^on. �The amended answer avers that on the eigbth of Novem- ber, 1875, Bruce caused a design to be drawn and publicly exhibited, which is identical with that of the plaintifï. Bruce testifies that he did, in fact, make and sell lamps substan- tially like the plaintiff's design, long before the latter ob- tained his patent. Those eomplained of as infringements were set up in thedefendant town 20 months before the plQ.in- tiff's application for patent 10,497 was made. They resemble so closely the model C> which the plaintilf produces as repre- senting his patented design, that it is almost impossible to believe that one was not copied from the other. But Bruce ha,d no opportunity to copy anything from the' plaintiff, be- cause the plaintiff made nothing, unless it were a model, to which Bruce had no access, until October, 1876 ; wbile these lamps were put up in May, 1876, within two miles and a half of the plaintiff's bouse. In August, 1876, the plaintiff ap- plied for, and in September obtained, his patent, No. 9,488, for a much inferior design. Yet he now thinks that he in- vented the better form about September, 1875. �Bruce exhibited publicly to a committee and certain inhab- itants of the town of Peterborough, New Hampshire, Novem- ber 8, 1875, a drawing of a lamp post, which he was ready to sell them, and which is like the patented and the infringing design. He testifies that he had made others like it, excepting the ornament on the top, which forms no part of the plaintifï's claim, as early as November, 1874, �I am much inclined to believe, upon the evidence, that Bruce invented this design, and that Burton, when he took out his patent. No. 10,497, knowing this, intended to claim only the post with two lanterns. �However this may be, I am of opinion that Bruce had put this design into public use, and had offered it for sale as early as November 8, 1875. which was more than two years before the plaintiff's application, and therefore avoids his patent. �Bill dismissed, with costs. ����
