Brett v. Quintard

The question of the infringement by the defendant’s intestate of the sixth claim of the Henry A. Wells “hat-body patent” has again been heard upon the evidence introduced by the defendant. It is proved that the manner in which Mr. Brown removed the bat from the revolving cone was the same as that described by Prof. Trowbridge upon the seventh pago of the printed testimony. The additional fact appears that 72 hats are plunged in the water each working hour, and consequently that the covering cloths are immersed in very hot water as often as once in each minute. It is to be remembered that in…