February 9, 1884.)
tCircuit Court. D. Rhode Island.
MOTION FOR CON'J'EMPT-PLAIN EVIDENCE REQUIRED.
To sustain 'amotion fOTconlempt on account of the violation of an injunction issued to restrain the infringement ofa patent, it must appear clearly and indisputably that the infringement continues..
,. InEqriity.'Mction for contempt. John'L.' S.1loberts and George L. Roberts, for complainant. Wilmarth )1., Thurston: and Benj. 1!'. Thurston, fOr defendants. Before. COLT,JJ,., COLT, J. The contend that they are not violating the injunction recently granted by thisceurt by reason of certain changes made ;iu The plaintiff claims that the defendants still infringe the first and seventh claims of the lacing-hook patent, as 'Well aathe patent for laoing-hook stock. The lacing-hook patent is (or a, combination. One of' the elements of the feeding device Dth mentioned in the first and. sev claims is a spring inserted in the groove along which the stock is fed, which operates to raise the stock and clear'it from the dies., ,In their present machine the defendants use no spring.' The incline'a in the 'groove of the feeding mechanism are not, in our opinioD', the ieqqi,va.lents ·of the spring, and do not perform, the same fmiCtion, and,lts shown in the affidavit of Mr. Renwick, may be dispensed with altogether. By.leaving out one element of the combination a serious ,dOUbt is raised as to the defendants' infringement; As to the lacing-hook stock patent the position is strongly urged by the defendants that the patent is for: stock with a series of alternate necks and indentations, and that in their pre,Sent machine they only use a single neck and indentation at the end of the stock strip, and not a series_ The plaintiff contends that, while at no moment of time a series exists, this is due to the fact that each neck and indentation is cut out as soon as formed, and that a series does exist in order. of time or successively, as is shown by the successive holes in the waste strip. It is clear, from the specification and drawing, that the patentee contemplated the co-existence of a series of alternate necks and indentations. It is from stook so specially prepared in a Series from which the blanks:forthe formation of lacing-hooks were to be cut. It may:well be. doubted whether. in view of the terms of the patent and the prior state of the art, the: patent can be held to extend to a single neck and indentation. M.otions of this character are not granted unless the violation of the:injunction is plain and free from doubt. Walk. Pat.. 481; BirdManuj'g Co. 2 Ban. & A. 519; Liddle v. Cory, sall v. 7 Blatchf. 1; Welling v. Trimming Co. 2 Ban. & A. 1; Bate Be/rig. Co. v. Eastman, 11 FED. REP. 902. Motion denied
THE C.D; BRYANT.
THEe: D. BRYANT.
(DiBtrice Oourt, D. Oregon. March 18,1884.)
SALVAGE BY PILOT.
Under the Oregon pilot act of 1882, (8es9. Laws, 15,) a pilot is bound to reDJoi del' aid to a vessel" in stress of weather or in case of disaster" and he is not entitled to salvage for such service unless he is thereby involved in .. extraordinary dan!!el' and risk."
CASE IN .JUDGMENT.
. The lihelant in a smooth sea and calm weather boarded the Bryant in a thick fog, while she lay aground at low tide on the outer edge of the middle sand of. the Columbia river, and at the next flood sailed her over into deep water in the' south channel, and, after drifting out to sea in the night, brought her into .port the next morning. Held, that the service of the libelant did not involve any" extraordinary danger or risk," and that he was only entitled to a pilot's compensation therefor. . . . .
In Admiralty. Frede1'ick R. Strong, for libelant. M. W. Fechheimer, for claimant. DEADY, J. The libelant, Henry Olsen, brings this suit to obtain a. deoree for salvage against the American bark C. D. Bryant and her cargo, for services rendered her at the mouth of the Columbia .river on September 4 and 5, 1883. The master of the Bryant, James P. Butman, intervening for his interest and that of his co-owners in the vessel, as well as the owners and consignees of the cargo, answers the libel, denying that the libelant performed any salvage service on the occasion in question, and alleging that he acted as bar pilot merely, for which service he was duly paid. The evidence is "ery voluminous, and, as usual in such cases, is largely irrelevant, immaterial, and repetitious. The material facts appear to be that on September 4,1883, the Bryant being bound on a voyage from Hong Kong to Portland, drawing about 19 feet of water, was off the mouth of the Columbia river, when, about 2 :30 P. M., and near high water, she grounded on the outer edge of the middle sand in ] 2 to t 5 feet of water at low tide, and about three miles south-west of Cape Disappointment light-the sea being smooth, the weather calm, and a thick fog or smoke on the bar; that about 5 o'clock she was boarded by the libelant, a bar pilot from the pilot-schooner Cousins, who thereupon took charge of her; that the vessel lay quietly in her bed in the sand after the libelaut took charge, until the flood tide began to make, and the wind freshened from the north-west, when with the aid of her sails and the swell of the sea she rubbed across the sand Bome time before 3 o'clock on the morning of the 5th, in .'8. southeasterly direction, into deep water, and was afterwards .carried by the ebb tide and un easterly wind in a south-westerly direction to se1j" wbere she laid off until daylight, and then came in o"er the bar with a light breeze and the flood tide, and was taken in tow by ,a tug, and brought to Astoria and beached with' three or four feet of water in her