OpenJurist

390

F,&DE2AL BEPOBTBB, UNITED STATES

'V. RUSSELL.

(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. October 31, 1884.)
CoUNTERFEITING

LAw. To change, by any kind of manipulation, silver, copper, or any other metal into the resemblance of some coin of the United States, or foreign coin, made current by law, or current as money in the United States, by gilding, electroplating, or any other process, or coloring it so that it resembles gold, is an indictable oliense, under chapter 24. act of Congress, January 16,1877; and a party so doing cannot excuse himself by showing what was his intention, or that he did not intend to use the coins he so made for fraudulent purposes, or that they should be so used by others, or that he was ignorant of the law.

GILDING OLD ENGLISH SUIJ,LINGS -

INTENT -

IGNORANCB OP

This was an indictment under the act of January 16, 1877, t. 24, for falsely making, forging, and counterfeiting coins in the resemblance of gold sovereigns. It appeared in evidence that the defendant, who was a gold plater, plated with gold certain English shillings of the reign of George III., the result of which was that they closely resembled gold sovereigns, and were afterwards passed as such. There was no allegation in the indictment tha,t the acts were done with intent to defraud, and it appears from the evidence that, in fact, the defendant had no such intent. Oharles Almy, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., for the United States. A. W. BOM'dman, for defendant. WEBB, J., charged the jury as follows: "The defendant stands charged with an offense under a law designed to protect the community against the circulation of spurious money. Questions of law are presented which are of great tance, and my opinion of which can be reviewed and corrected, but not by you. You will take the rule which I give as correct. "1 instruct you as matter of law that to change, by any kind of manipulation, coin of silver, copper, or any other metal into the semblance of other coin by gilding, electro-plating, or any other process, or coloring it so that it resembles gold, is within the law. It must be made to resemble some coin of the United States, or some foreign coin, made current by law o! current as money in the United States," After stating the facts, the judge further charged the jury as follows: "Under this statute the unauthorized making or forging or counterfeiting coins in the resemblance and similitude of any foreign gold or silver coin which, by law, is current in the United States, or in actual use and circulation as money within the United States, is ab, solutely prohibited, and whosoever does the prohibited acts is subject to the penalties of the law. The only question is whether the accused did, in fact, forge or counterfeit Buch coins as charged against

GLASGOW V. FRITTS.

891

him in the indictment. If he did, he cannot excuse himself by showing what was his intention, or that he did not intend himself to use the coin he so made for fraudulent purposes, or that they should be so used by others. Nor can he be excused on account of his ignorance of the law-that it did not allow him to do what he did."

GLASGOW

and others

'V. FRITTS.

(Oircuit Oourt, N. D. llZinoiB.

November 10, 1884

PATENTS POR INVENTIONS-ANTICIPATION-MACHINE Fon PREPABING AND GILD· ING MOUl.DINGs-GLASGOW AND FRITTS INVENTIONS.

Patent No. 226,845, issued April 22. 1880. to William Glasgow, for a machinE: for enameling or preparing mouldings for gildmg, was anticipated by the Fritts machine"of 1876, invented by defendant, and is void.

In Equity. Mr. Dunn and Mr. Banning, for complainant. Mr. Stout, for defendant. BLODGET'f, J. ThIS is a bill to restrain the allegell infringe"ment of patent No. 226,845, issued April 22, 1880, to complainant, for a. "machine for enameling or preparing mouldings for gilding," and for an accounting. The defenses are:
(1) That defendant does not infringe; (2) that the machine covered by complainant's patent was not the sole invention of but was the invention of the defendant and complainant acting together; (3) that the machine, or the substantial and operative parts thereof, used by defendant, was invented and put in public use by him more than two years prior to the application for a patent by the complainant.

The machine described in the patent is a device for coating mouldings for picture-frames, looking-glasses, and kindred uses, with an enamel made of whiting and glue, as a foundation on which to lay the gilding. The process by means of this device consists in runor pushing the moulding to be coated through a box filled with the enameling or coating composition in a plastic condition, whereby a sufficient amount of the composition to form a coat of enamel adheres to the moulding, and the coating thus taken on is smoothed and compacted by steel or iron templets or forms, which fit over the external surface of the mouldings where they leave the box; and in the patf"nted device these templets are placed both at the place of en· trance ttnd of exit, and the machine consists. of feed-rollers and pressure-rollers, by which the moulding is fed or forced endwise through the enameling box, and held in proper position for that purpose. The patent contains nine claims, all being for a combination of different members of the machine working together to produce the desired result, and the defendant is charged with the infringement of all