UNITED STATES V. SPINTZ.
himself, using the precaution and care which his profession and employment imposed on him, was, notwithstanding, injured in consequence of the unfitness of the joist, he is entitled to recover, and the verdict should be for him:' Though you may find from the evidence that the joist in question was not properly inspected, and was not fit to be used in the building of defendants, yet, if plaintiff <lontributed to his injury by imprudence or recklessness, without whioh the accident would not have happened, this constituted oontributory negligence, and the plaintiff cannot recover, and the verdict should be for the defendant. Though you 'may find from the testimony that the superintendent br overseer ordering plaintiff to tobraoe the joists was an unfit person for his 'position, this did not relieve the plaintiff from using the ordinary prudenoe and oareheretofore spoken of. There is no controversy about the safety of the structure erected by defendants as a whole, and therefore no mention has been made thereof in the instructions, though set up in plaintiff's declaration. The rule of assessing damages, in case you find the issues for the plaintiff, is as follows: The difference between his former and his present ability to earn, including compensation for his past Buffering.
(Note 01 Case.)
UNI'tED STATES '0. SPINTZ.l
(at,call Court. S. D. GUWIlW, W. D. October Term. 1883.)
Orr_sEI. Couuts In an Indictment under llSetlonl 3922 and 3924 or the Revised statutes may be proPllrl, joined. under section 1024. although the former be II mildemeanor and the latter II felOD7. Spintz and Sprlnz are not tdem
Demurrer. ;Plea of misnomer. S. A. Darnetl, Dist. Atty., for the United States. Hill & Harris, for defendant. Before Hon. JAlIfES W. LoCKE, D. J., presiding hy designation. The defendant demurred to the indictment for misjoinder. The court overruled the demurrer, as stated in head-note 1. See U. S. v. Wentworth, 11 FED. H.EP. 52; U. S. v. Malone, 9 FED. REP. 900; U. S. v. Stone, 8 FED. REP. 252; U. S. v. Ancarola,1 FED. REP. 677. Defenrlant pleaded misnomer; that he was indicted as Joseph Spintz, and that his true name is Joseph Sprinz; and that he waaknown only by his true name. The district attorney demurred to the plea, but the demurrer was overruled, as stated in head-note 2. See Archb. Crim. Pl. <It Pro 82; Lynes v. State, 30 Amer. Dec. 557; 39 Amer. Dec. 457; 28 Amer. Rep. 439, note.
by W. B. Hill, Esq,. of the Macau bar. :
BRIGHTON 'V. WILSON.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Rhode Island.
.PATEN:TS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT.
October 20, 1883.)
A comparison of the defendant's device with that made by the plaintiff under his letters patent No. 216,256, dated June 10, 1879, for an improvement in box-loopsfor harn!;lsses, shows a substantial identity of construction; the change of Constr.uction in the article made by defendant being immaterial. The evidence discloses that the article Iilade by the defendant differs essentially from that described in his patent No. 260,074, dated June 27, 1882, for an improvement iJ;). bQx-loop and blind for harnllsses. Injunction granted.
It is weIJscttIed that imm,atei-ial changes, or the substitution of mechanical equivalents,will not relieve a party from the charge of infringement.
In Equity. Warrett R. Perce, for complainant. ,Oscar Lapham, for defendant. COLT, J. This motion for a preliminary injunction is founded upon an allegedirifringement of letters patent No. 216,256, dated June 10, 18'79, fotan improvement in bpx-loops for harnesses, Difficulty bfl,s always been experienced in obtaining a box-loop in connection with a secure fastening of the blinder to the bridle. Stitching is here difficult and unsatisfactory. In this device there is a metallic fra,me or tube, covered with leather, which holds securely the cheek strap of the bridle, with a shank and flanges extending out upon one side. The box-loop having a narrow opening upon one side is slid over the flanges of this metallic frame. The blinder iron having two or more ears, each with a narrow slot upon the upper ,side, is inserted into openings made at or near the line where the metallic frame is bent up to form the shank and flanges. By means of a suitable pressure the flanges are bent down, and fasten the whole together. A keyshaped wedge of leather fills up the portion of the opening in the metallic frame left unoccupied when the blinder has been pushed up into place, as well as the narrow space between the box-loop and the frame below the blinder. The first claim in the patent is for the frame with its shank and flanges, in combination with the box-loop and strap. The defendant seeks to avoid an infringement by cutting away portions of the flanges of the metallic frame, leaving several projecting clinching pieces or ears. He substitutes for the cut-away portions of the flanges a metal plate with clasps inside the box-loop. In this plate are slots which receive the ears of the metallic frame after they have passed through openings in the blinder iron. A comparison of the defendant's device with that made by the plaintiff, shows, we think, a substantial identity of construction. Both consist of a box-loop, combined with a metallic frame or tube. In the plaintiff's device the flanges of the metallic frame serve to hold together the frame and the box-loop, and