no mon would be patented, the want of novelty might be made out. But, as before attempted to be shown, the invention involves the increase of the size of figures in proportion to the size of letters in connection with this size of the body of the type, and the whole of that does not appear with the requisite clearness to have been known or used before. IJet there be a decree that the patent is valid, that the defendants infringe, and for an injunction and an account according to the prayer of the bill, with costs.
and another v. MARBLE.·
(Cirouit Dourt,8. D. New York
LETTER8 PATENT-REISSUE 7,729-COR8ET CLA8P-INFRINGEMENT.
A preliminary injunction refused, it being doubtful whether, in view of the language of the specification and claim, and of the state of the art, defendant's clasps were an infringement of plaintiff's patent, reissue 7,729.
In Equity. On motion for injunction. F. P. Fish and J. S. Van Wyck, for plaintiffs. E. Wetmore, for defendant. BLATCHFORD, C. J. I am not prepared to hold, on this motion for a preliminary injunction, that the second cla,im of reissue No.7,729 can, in view of the text of the specification and of the language of the claim and of the state of the art, be held to extend to anything less than the wide steel or husk marked a, with studs on it, placed near the edge of it,-that is, further from that side of it from which the fastening spring approaches the steels,-the fastening spring lying upon the wide steel substantially "near its center or further edge," for the purpose set forth in the text. The absence of the wide steel, in this view, from the defendant's two forms of clasp-the three steel and the four steel-makes the question of infringement so doubtful as to make it improper to grant a preliminary injunction. The Bradford corset clasp and the Cohn corset clasp both of them have the wide steel and the other features above mentioned.
«'Reported by S. Nelson White, Esq., of the New York bar.
(District OQU1't, D. MQII'uland.
February 20, 1882.)
CoLLTSION-CONFLICT OF TESTIMONy-IMPROBABLE CASE.
Where, in a libel by the of a sailing-vessel against a steam-ship for damages for a collision, the testimony was in direct and irreconcilable conflict, and the testimony of the libellant's witnesses was discredited because of the improbabilities of the case attempted to be established uy them, the libel was ordered dismissed.
In Admiralty. This case having been once argued in the district court, the judge, after considering the case, directed a reargument. It was then at hiB request, and with the assent of counsel, reargued before both the district and circuit judges as if on appeal. John H. Tlwmas, for libellants. Brown et Brune, for respondents. MORRIS, D. J. This libel is filed by the owners of the American schooner David E. Wolff, (122 tons,) against the British steamer Leversons, (916 tons,) to recover damages resulting from a collision in the Chesapeake bay. The schooner was bound down the bay from Baltimore to Portsmouth, Virginia, laden with 200 tons of steel rails. The steamer was proceeding up the bay on a voyage from Liverpool to Baltimore. The collision occurred between 10 and 11 o'clock at night February 25,1881, fOtH miles S. E. by S. from York Spit light, the night being dark, but the atmosphere clear, and the wind a seven or eight knot breeze from the eastward. The schooner was struck on her port side, nearly at right angles, just forward of the mainmast, by the bow of the steamer, and sank immediately in water five fathoms deep, All those on board the schooner were drowned except the steward and the lookout, who were rescued from the water by boats from the steamer. The case for the schooner, stated by the amended libel, is that the schooner was on a course S. i W., with her side lights brightly burning, when those on board saw the red light of the steamer a coniliderable distance off over the schooner's port bow; that the schooner held her course, alid the red light of the steamer continued to be visiQle until the steamer was about abreast of the schooner, when the light of the steamer became visible; that immediately upon v.10,no. 7-48