NOTES OF DEOISIONS.
claim cannot 'stand; and where the second claim is for the product made by the process described il;1 the first claim"it is invalid for want of invention and for want of novelty. Where there is nothing new in the shape,construction, or material of the cans used in pl,l.cking the meats there is no invention, and the patent is invalid for want of novelty. ,WID., Clifford and John N. Jewett. for appellants· . 'L. and John W. Noble, for appellees. , ,The cases.cited in the opinion were: Pearce v. Mulford, 102 U. S. 112; Rubber Tip Pencil Co. v. HOWlU'd, 20 Wall. Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 11 How. 248; Stimpson v. Hardman, 10 Wall. 117. The case or WILSON PACKING CO. v. CLAPP, on appeal frQm the circuit C9.urt of the United,States for ;the northern district of lllinois. was disposed of the same time, upon the, v;iews expressed in the above cases. ,
Paterim.:-Reissue-Abandonment of, Invention. GUIllEt 'I). CITY ,QJI' BROOKLYN. Appeal from the circutt court of the frnited States for the eastern f)istrict of New: York. The invention in th,is case covered by the reissue was for qhamfered edges 'of the of stone ufled in ·streetpavements. ,The hi the claim on the reissue is that if blocks are selected with their sides roug/) enough, joints can be made that will furnish a suitable foothold without the use of strips and without chamfering. The case was determined in the Justice Waite supreme court of the UnitedStl\tes on ApriU7,1882, Mr. delivering the opinion of the court affirming the decree. Where it was' shown that if stone ,were used with rougher side surfaces than those found in old, pavements, and that all artificial (,)f keeping the transverse joints open might be abandoned and the requisite surface secured, it was simply carrying forwar':! an old idea, and doing what had peen suI:). stantially done before, but with better results. Such a change is only in de-gree, and is not patentable. "
Admiralty-Jurisdiction. Ex PARTE GORDON. This was an application by the owner of the British steamer Leversons for a writ of prohibition to restrain the district court .of the United States for the district of Maryland, sitting in admiralty, from proceeding further in a cause begun against his vessel to recover damages .for the drowning' of certain persons in consequence of a collision'on Chesapeake bay, caused by the fault of the steamer. The case was decided in the supreme court on January 9, 1882, when the petition for the writ of prohibition was denied. Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. The district courts having the power to hear and decide all cases arising under this jurisdiction when a prohibition is applied for, the question pre.sented is not whether a libellant can recover in the suit he has begun, but whether he can go into a court of admiralty to have his rights determined. Where the injury complained of was the result of a collision it is a subject of admiralty jurisdiction; and the question whether pecuniary damages are to be awarded for the loss of life in the collision may properly be decided by the admi-
ralty court. If the district court entertains such a suit, appeal lies from its . decision to the circuit court, and from there, here, if the value of the matter in dispute is sufficient. Brown and Arthur Goo. Brown, for petitioner. John H. Thomas, contra. The cases cited in the opinion were: The Belfast, 7 Wall. 637; Smith v. Brown, Law Rep. 6 Q. B. 729; The Franconia, Law Rep. 2 P. D. 163; The Guldfaxe, Law Rep. 2 Adm. & Ec. 325 j The Explorer, Law Rep. 3 Adm. It Ec. 289; The Charkieh, Law Rep. 8 Q. B. 197.
see The Lf,....r8on'. 10 FED. REP. 763.
Admiralty..-Jnrisdiction-Prohibition. Ex PARTE DETROIT RIVER FERRY CO. Petition for writ of prohibition. '.rhis case is in all its material facts like that of Ex parte Gordon, just decided. It was determined on the same day, and the decision was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Waite, denying the writ. In an action for damages for death caused by a collision, an appeal ",ill lie to the circuit court in favor of libellant if he is defeated, and in favor of respondent if the recovery exceeds $50. It is no ground for relief by bition that provision has not been made for a review of the decision of the court of original jurisdiction, by appeal or otherwise Same. Ex PARTE HAGAR. This was a bearing on petition for a writo! prohibition brought to restrain proceeding in the district court of the district of Delaware, sitting in admiralty, fro'm further action in a suit. pending for. the recovery of half pilotage claimed to be due under the statutory regulations of Delaware. Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court denying the writ. Claims for pilotage fees are within the jurisdiction of the admiralty, and such being the case under the decision just rendered Ex parte Gordon, the district court can properly hear and decide the matters in dispute, and prohibition will be denied. H. G. Ward and R. C. McMurtrie, for petition. George Gray, Edward G. Bradford, Henry Flanders, andThomas F. Bayarcl, contra. parte McNeil, 13 Wall. 236; Hobart v. Drogan, 10 Pet. 108. Cases cited: