the invention is one of "improvements ill lir-heating furnaces." The right figures in the drawings are all of them views of different parts of a fnrnace. The specification says: "My said invention consists of several improvements in hotair furnaces designed to be set in brick-work or inclosed in any suitable manner." The specification then divides the invention into six parts. The first part consists of one particular; the second part of three particulars; the third part of one particular; the fourth part of two particulars; the fifth part of one particular; and the sixth part of one particular. There are as many claims as there are particnlars, namely, nine. Only the second and third claims are involved in this suit. They relate to particulars 1 and 2 of the second part of the invention. The text of the specification says, in respect to those par"My invention also consists in the combination and arrangement of a passage way from and through the furnace rront to and into the fire-pot at the bottom thereof, the passage way being of sufficient width and height to admit of the intrJduction of a slicer or poker for the purpose of slicing the fire and removing the clinkers from the grate-bars forward; the bottom of the passage way being on a line with the top sm face of the grate bars, and the top and sides of the passage way being formed by an enclosing plate, extending from the fire-pot to the furnace front, and joining at the sides the ash pit box, so as to prevent any commlinication between said passage way leading from the furnace front into the fire-pot and the hot-air chamber surrounding the fire-pot; and this part of my invention further consists in combining with said enclosed passage from the furnace front to the fire-pot a down ward opening between the furnace front and fire-pot, leading from said enclosed passage to the ash pit, whereby clillkers and other matter removed from the fire-pot may fall into the ash pit." The specification also says: "The drawings illustrate a furnace for brick-work, in which my inventions are embodied. The fire-pot a is a cylindrical casting, such 11>1 commonly used for that purpose, and sets upon a also of cast-iron, which
CO. V. SPEAR.
encloses the ash pit b. · « The fire-pot is placed a.t sufficient distance from the furnace front 6 to allow the hot· air chamber enclosed in the inner surrounding walls to extend around the fire-pot, between it and the furnace front. · · · At the bottom of the fire-pot, in the front part thereof, is a clinker cleaning aperture i, which extends forward to a.nd through the furnace front,. the passage way being enclosed by the plate i, so that it shall not have any communication with the surrounding hot-air chamber el. A stopper may be used to close this clinker cleaning passage, or that part of it which leads into the fire-pot, if desired, or it may be left open to supply air to the fuel in the fire-pot. The aperture should be of sufficient width and height to permit the introduction and use of a slicer, or a poker, or other suitable instrument, for the purpose of slicing the fire, cleaning the grate-bars from clinker. and removing the clinker, which may be drawn out through this passage into the room in front of the furnace front, if desired, when the downward passage j is not nsed, in which case there should be a plate across the space between the fire-pot and furnace front, on a level with the top surface of the grate-bars, The downward passage j, between the furnace front and grate, is an opening leading from the clinker cleaning passage down to the ash pit, for the purpose of allowing the clinker and ashes to fall from the clinker cleaning opening into the ash pit." The second and third claims are in these words: "2. The clinker cleaning passage from a.nd through the furnace front to and into the fire-pot, enclosed by the plate connected with the fire-pot, furnace front and ash pit, so as to prevent communication with the hot-air chamber surrounding the fire-pot, substantially so described. 3. In combination with the clinker cleaning passage, the downward passage leading fuerefIOm to the ash pit, substantially as described." Various prior structures and patents are set up as anticipating the second a.nd third claims on the question of novelty. One is the furnace represented by the defendants' exhibit"O·d Philadelphia Heater." It is adduced to defeat the seoand claim. On the whole evidence it d:d not contain a prao-
tically useful clinker cleaning passage, nor one operating as Thatcher's does. The passage was so narrow at its inner end, in proportion to the diameter of the grate, as to require all the clinkers on the grate surface which could be reached to be drawn to such narrow aperture, and thus a large part of the clinkers which could be reached would be drawn through, "and carry along with them the live coals remaining in the parts previously cleaned of clinkers. This difficulty is obviated in Thatcher's arrangement by the relation which the siz:) of the inner end of the passage bears to the size of the grate. Moreover, in the "Old Philadelphia Heater" the sides of the fire-pot were nearly at right angles to the opening, and this made it impossible to reach considerable portions of the grate surface. The structure had no downward passage. The Spear car-heater does not contain Thatcher's inventions. 'I'he John P. Hayes patent, of June 22, 1858, is adduced. The upwardly projecting studs on the grate prevented Hayes' arrangement from operating like Thatcher's, and there was no downward passage leading out of a clinker cleaning passage. The same remarks apply to "defendants' exhibit, J. P. Hayes' heater," and to "complainant's exhibit, New Jersey representation of Hayes' heater." The Moore patent of Yay 22, 1866, has no bearing on tlte case. The patent to James Morrison, Jr., of F-ebruary 21, 1865, is for a stove, not a furnace. The stove has near its base an opening from the outside, on a level with the grate, to and into the fire-pot, for the purpose of raking out the clinkers and dropping them into the ash pit over the edge of a projection from the grate. The clinker eleaning passage does not extend through a. chamber containing hot air, as in Thatcher's arrangement. Nor is the downward passage wholly within the clinker cleaning passage, as in Thatcher's structure, but, on the contrary, it is wholly outside of the clinker cleaning passage. The Morrison model) if differing from the description and drawings of the patent, cannot be regarded to affect Thatcher's patent. The Thatcher patent requires that the
THATCHER HEATING CO. V. SPEAR·
.clinker cleaning passage shall be enclosed by a plate connected with the fire-pot, furnace front and ash pit, which shall prevent communication with a hot-air chamber surrounding the fire-pot, and that the downward passage shall be wholly between the furnace front and the grate, and none of it outside of the furnace front. No such arrangement is found in Morrison's structure. The material question is that of infringement. In the defendants' structures, represented by the plaintiff's exhibits D, E, F, G, H and I, and which are represented, also, in substance, by the defendants' model, "Anti-clinker Heater," the anti-clinker arrangement for cleaning the grate is' placed wholly below the hot-air chamber, and below the bottom of the fire-pot and Within the ash pit. The clinker cleaning passage does not go through the hot-air chamber. In the Thatcher arrangement the clinker cleaning passage is above the ash pit and goes through the hot-air chamber. As the defendants do not have the clinker cleaning passage of the second claim of the Thatcher patent, they do not have the clinker cleaning passage of the third claim, and so neither claim is infringed. Nor do the exhibits K and L and Angus' stove infringe either the second or the third claim. They do not have any hot-air chamber surrounding the fire-pot, and so do not infringe the second claim. They do not have the clinker cleaning passage of the third claim, because they do not have the clinker cleaning passage of the second claim, enclosed by the plate of the second claim, shutting off communication with a hot-air chamber surrounding the fire-pot. The bill is dismissed, with costs.
THE SECOND AVENUE RAILROAD COMPANY.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
January 20, 1880.)
PATENT-RE-ISSUE-IDENTITY OF INVENTION.
Infringement of Patent. WHEELER, J. The only real question presented at the hearing of this cause upon the pleadings as drawn, undedhe law, and the evidence admissible in support of them, is whether the re-issued patent No. 6,697, dated October 11, 1875, is for the same invention as that for which the original patent No. 61,482, dated January 22, 1867, was granted. Upon a careful examination of each, although there are several things mentioned and described in the specification of the re-issue not mentioned or described in that of the original, and although the claims are quite different, there is nothing mentioned or described in the specification of the re·issue not shown in the drawings or model of the original, so far. as has been observed, and there is no element of any combination,or arrangement,or device, claimed in the re-isssue that is not either mentioned or described in the original as performing, or intended to perform, the office assigned to it in the reissue. Therefore, it cannot be held that the re-issue is for any different invention from that described in the original. Let a decree be entered for the orator for an injunction against further infringement of any of the patents described in the bill except No. 1,959, dated June 14, 1864, for a. design, which has expired, and for an account according to the prayer of the bill, with costs.
(Circuit Court, D. Kentuekll.
LETTERS CONCERNING LOTTERIES-LETTERS ADDRESSED TO SECRETARY OF LOTTEUY COMPANy-DETEN'l'ION BY POSTMISTRESS-INJUNCTION,-
A court of equity will not grant relief where letters addressed to the secretary of a lottery company are detained by the postmistress, under the direction of the postmaster general, as having been mailed in violation of section 3894 of the Hevised Statutes, providing that" no letter concerning lotterieil .. .. .. .. .. shall be carried in the mail," where the pleadings fail to show tha.t the letters had no connection with the lottery business.
.. * ..
In Equity. James A. Beattie, D. W. Sanders and W. O. Dodd, for complainant. G. C. Wharton, J. p,. Goodloe and A. A. Freeman for defendant. BROWN, J. This is a bill brought by the complainant, a citizen of New York, against the defendant, postmistress of the city of Louisville, for the purpose of enjoining her from interfering with and delaying complainant's letters, addressed to him at Louisville. The bill charges, uvon information and belief, that there are in the post-offices, and have been since the tenth of October, letters of the value of $5,500, addressed to "T. J. Commerford, Secretary, Louisville, Kentucky, lock· box: No. 121," with the required postage prepaid upon each letter, and that defendant has taken possession of the same, and refuses to deliver them as the laws of the United States require, notwithstanding he has demanded possession thereof. The bill further alleges that at the time these letters were mailed the postal laws of t,he United States and the I'egulations of the department authorized the mailing and transmission thereof and their deiivery by the defendant; that the complainant is entitled to possession of the same, and unless they are delivered he will suffer great wrong and irreparable injury. Prayer for an injunction to the defendant to deliver possesv.1,no.7-27