any form to the Therefore, I am led to the irresistible conillusion tht themaili])g of this letter is a violation of the law. To what extent or in what degree it is a violation is not for me to determine. Every violation of this law should be heeded, and thus there will be secured to the p"ople a Dure. decent, and undefiled mail. The ill0tion is oyeuuled.
UNITED STATES V. COTA.
(District COUl't, lV. D. JIielzif}ai., N. D.
July 24, 1383.)
Note of Decision. Information for carrying on the business of a retail liquor uealer without the payment of tile special tax. J. IV. Stolle, U. S. Atty., for the UJ2ited States. E. C. Clark, for uefendant. Before lIon. S. L. ,\'ITIlEY, District JUdge. The evidence in this case showed that the defendant kept a boarding-house and had a bar where he sold ciuer and an article known as "Heed's gilt-euge tonic," by the glass or urink, to all persons who called for the same; that the tonic was sold in consitlerable quantities, by the glass or dr'nk, to persons who drank it as a beYerage as other liquors are drank, and that persons became intoxicated thereby; that said tonic was generally sold at saloons and drinking-places in that vicinity, and contained a large percentage of distilled spirits. It was claimed on the part of the government that the evidence showed that this tonic was" compound liquors," within the meaning of the third subdivision of section 3244, Hevisetl and that the manufacturer of such compounds was liable to pay a recti tier's special tax, p.nd that the defendant was guilty under the information for selling the same in the manner shown uy the evidence. The COUl t charged the jnry that if tile article sold was a medicine and contained spirits simply to preserve its medicinal qualities, and was sold and taken as a medicine in good faith, that the defendant should be acquitted. Dnt if the jury found from the evitleuce that the article was a compound containing such a quantity of spirits as to be intoxicating. and was sold by the (ll'fenrlant as a hevcragl', he knowing its intOXicating quality, and was drank by persons not as a medicine, but as a beverage, because of its intoxicating and stimulating qnal:ties, then, no matter by what name it was known or called, the defendant was guilty as charged. The jury returneu a verdict of guilty, and the defendant was fined 8300, ,and sentenced to imprisonment in tlle custody ef the marshalfor 30 daj·s.
CALIFORNIA ARTIFICIAL STONE PAVING CO. V. FREEBORN.
CALIF'ORNIA ARTIFICIAL STONe PAVINCCO.·,v. FReEBORN. 1
(Circuit Court, D. California.
January 26, 1883.)
Cross-cutting the larger blocks of artificial stone pavements into smaller ones with a trowel during the processor formation, in the manner described in and Perine Cases, 7 i3awy. 190, [15. C. 8 FED. REP. 821,] is an infringement of the Schillinger patent.
lIlARKING JOINTS NOT
Rnnning the marker, described in J[olitor and Perine Cases, along the line of the surface between the old block and the new one formed against it, withant anything being interposed, or any cutting being done between the blocks during the process of formation, is not an infringement of SChillinger's patent.
In this case, after a line of blocks had been formed and become solidified, a new block, from 12 to 20 feet by 2 or 2! feet wide, was formed between scantlings and the block or blocks before formed, without interposing anything whatever between the new and the old blocks. The material in its plastic state having been tamped down and then a layer of finer material put on top, the whole was finished and the olocks divided up into smaller ones during the process of formation, by use of. a trowel, etc., in all respects, except as to the line between the old and new blocks, as is described in the Cases of Molitor and Perine, 7 Sawy. 190. 2 Nothing was interposed and no cutting was made in the joint between the old and the new blocks. But after the material had partially set, and the block had been finished and divided into smaller blocks, the marker described in Afolitor and Perine Cases. was run along the line between the old and new blocks on the surface. This is the only difference in making the pavement in this case and in those of and Perine. TVlzeaton d': Harpham, for plaintiff. C. Fl. Parker, for defendant. SAWYER, J. I have gone over this subject again as to the crosscutting into blocks with a trowel during tIle process of formation. I adhere to the position that I took in the Cases of Perine and Molitor, 7 Sawy.190. 3 There is in this case a mark on the Burfacealong the line of division between the newly-formed block and the one before formed. The forming of the block against the pavement is according to the specifications in the reissue subsequently disclaimed; but it is claimed that running the marker along the line between the old and new blocks on the surface, after forming the latter, is an infringement. I am not able to take that view. I have gone as far in that direction as I think the patent will justify. I think in that particular it is not an infringement. Counsel for complainant have made a point as to simply marking lines upon the surface of. the ,block with the marker employed.. There is one case it wus
C. 8 FED. HEP.