
    VICTOR TALKING MACH. CO. et al. v. GREENBERG.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    May 24, 1910.)
    Patents (§ 326)—Suit fob Infbingement—-Violation of Injunction—Contempt Pboceeding.
    Evidence heló, insufficient to warrant the punishment of a defendant for contempt for violation of an injunction against infringement of a patent, under the rule that the proof in such case should be very convincing.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Patents, Cent. Dig. §§ 613, 618; Dec. Dig. § 326.*]
    In Equity. Suit by the Victor Talking Machine Company and the United States Gramophone Company against Joseph Greenberg, sued as Joseph Goldberg. On motion to punish defendant for contempt.
    Motion denied.
    Horace Pettit, for complainants.
    Mortimer W. Solomon, for defendant.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § numbee in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Eep’r Indexes
    
   WARD, Circuit Judge.

This is a motion to punish one_ Joseph Greenberg, sued as Joseph Goldberg, for violation of an injunction issued against him upon his default.

Proofs of contempt ought to be very convincing. In this case the affidavits are complicated and confusing. One Case and one Moody say that on April 8, 1910, they saw the defendant taking a Victrola machine from a delivery wagon into the office of one Maclcsoud at 80 Greenwich street. After that the defendant went in the wagon to several places, at some of which he collected or delivered talking machines and records which were infringements; Case and Moody following in a taxicab. Macksoud is evidently aiding the complainants to obtain evidence of violation of the injunction by defendant, and I think it quite clear that his dealings were not with the defendant, but with his son, Meyer Greenberg. It may be that Case and Moody followed Meyer, and not Joseph, Greenberg in the taxicab. While the affidavits do create considerable doubt about Joseph Greenberg’s good faith, I am not sufficiently convinced to punish him for contempt.

Motion denied.  