810 FEDEBAIi EEPOETEB. �for the district of Connecticut, and in this court, where the Bame questions are pending in a way better calculated to elicit the exact truth, willset the matter right; but, taking the evidence as I find it, including such inspection as one who is not an expert can give to the articles themselves, I do not feel at liberty to say that there has been a breach of the injunction. Motion denied. ���TUOKBR ». P. & F. GOBBIK. {Cireuit Court, D. Connecticut. March 2, 1880.) TncKER V. BuBDiTT and others, ante, 808, followed in this case. �In Equity. ■ Motion for an Attachment. �Shipman, D. J. This is a motion for an attachment against the defendants for an alleged violation of the injunction order heretofore issued by this court in the above-entitled cause. �The same queistions which are presented in the affidavits were tried by Judge Lowell upon a motion for attachment by the present plaintiff against Burditt and others. The motion was denied, and, after examining the varions exhibits in the case, I can do no more than refer to the clearly expressed opinion of Judge Lowell as an embodiment of my views. I do not think that any. benefit would be conferred upon the parties by now attempting to modify or vary the language ■which he has used. �In both the Connecticut and Massachusetts cases there were draw pulls which were, after being cleaned from iron scale, tumbled in a barrel . containing bits of brass, or brass ■"scratchers." By this process the surface of the articles was "brassed," or was more or less covered with a deposit of the aofter metal. They were then dipped incopal varnish, known as- a bronzing varnish, which was hardened in an ovenheated to a moderate beat, but not to so great a beat as to oxydize ����
