Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/489

 ANDBBWS V. CBBEGAK. 477 �the appearance which the design will add to articles of jew- elry, making them desirable aceording to its attractiveness to those who may observe and want them; and it is the right to the exclusive use of this which is secured by it.to the orator. Oorham Go. v. White, 14 Wall. 371. The defendants have not left the orator to his rights, but have infringed upon them by making use of a design which presents substantially the same appearance to that class of persons. For this they must be held liable. �Let a decree be entered for an injunction and an account, aceording to the prayer of the bill, with costs. ���Andeews and others v, Ckebgan. {Girmit Court, S. D. New York. Marcli 22, 1881.) �1. DKrvEN "Wells — Written Conthact — Pabol Evidence. �Paroi evidence of a written contract for driven wells is admissible in a suit for infringement. �2. Same — Presumption op Profits— Accounting. �The allegation that the transaction was not profitable would not meet the preaumption of profits arising f rom the putting down of the Wells so as to def eat an accounting. �3. Bame— Damage»— Rbv. Bt. § 4921, �Besides, section 4921 of the Revised Statutes provides for an account- ing for damages as well as prgfits, and there might be damages to be accounted for in such a case. — [Ed. �In Equity. �Whbeler, D. J. This suit is brought for an infringement of a patent owned by the plaintiffs for a driven well. The answer denies infringement and accountability. No question about the validity of the patent is made. The proofs show that the defendant proeured four wells to be put down, so as to draw water, for a fixed price, to be paid when the work should be done, and that the work was done to his satisfac- tion so far that he did pay. The wells put down were driven wells. It is argued that the kind of wells to be put down ��� �