defence alleged the Goebel
anticipation, in support of which it offered in evidence four lamps,
Nos. 1, 2, and 3 purporting to have been made before 1854, and No. 4
before 1872. After a very full review of the facts in the case, and
a fair consideration of the defendants' affidavits, Judge Colt in his
opinion goes on to say:

"It is extremely improbable that Henry Goebel constructed a practical
incandescent lamp in 1854. This is manifest from the history of the art
for the past fifty years, the electrical laws which since that time have
been discovered as applicable to the incandescent lamp, the imperfect
means which then existed for obtaining a vacuum, the high degree of
skill necessary in the construction of all its parts, and the crude
instruments with which Goebel worked.

"Whether Goebel made the fiddle-bow lamps, 1, 2, and 3, is not necessary
to determine. The weight of evidence on this motion is in the direction
that he made these lamp or lamps similar in general appearance, though
it is manifest that few, if any, of the many witnesses who saw the
Goebel lamp could form an accurate judgment of the size of the filament
or burner. But assuming they were made, they do not anticipate the
invention of Edison. At most they were experimental toys used to
advertise his telescope, or to flash a light upon his clock, or to
attract customers to his shop. They were crudely constructed, and their
life was brief. They could not be used for domestic purposes. They
were in no proper sense the practical commercial lamp of Edison. The
literature of the art is full of better lamps, all of which are held not
to anticipate the Edison patent.

"As for Lamp No. 4, I cannot but view it with suspicion. It presents
a new appearance. The reason given for not introducing it before the
hearing is unsatisfactory. This lamp, to my mind, envelops with a cloud
of distrust the whole Goebel story. It is simply impossible under the
circumstances to believe that a lamp so constructed could have been
made by Goebel before 1872. Nothing in the evidence warrants such a
supposition, and other things show it to be untrue. This lamp has a
carbon filament, platinum leading-in wires, a good vacuum, and is well
sealed and highly finished. It is said that this lamp shows no traces of
mercury in the bulb because the mercury was distilled, but Goebel says
nothing about distilled mercury in his first affidavit, and twice
he speaks of the particles of mercu