University of Virginia Library

Search this document 
  
  
  
  

expand section1. 
expand section2. 
expand section3. 
expand section4. 
expand section5. 
expand section6. 
expand section7. 
expand section8. 
expand section9. 
expand section10. 
expand section11. 
expand section12. 
expand section13. 
expand section14. 
expand section15. 
expand section16. 
expand section17. 
expand section18. 
expand section19. 
expand section20. 
expand section21. 
expand section22. 
collapse section23. 
  
  
  
  
  
What the Judge Said.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
expand section24. 
expand section25. 
expand section26. 
expand section27. 
 28. 

What the Judge Said.

In granting the preliminary injunction the judge said:

"Defendants claim generally that the difference in construction of their apparatus causes the equilibrium or lateral balance to be maintained and its aerial movement

secured upon an entirely different principle from that of complainant; the defendants' aeroplanes are curved, firmly attached to the stanchions and hence are incapable of twisting or turning in any direction; that the supplementary planes or so-called rudders are secured to the forward stanchion at the extreme lateral ends of the planes and are adjusted midway between the upper

208

and lower planes with the margins extending beyond the edges; that in moving the supplementary planes equal and uniform angles of incidence are presented as distinguished from fluctuating angles of incidence. Such claimed functional effects, however, are strongly contradicted by the expert witness for complainant.