machine can make no difference. The patent in suit is not for any cutting mechanism. The invention is simply a forming die, which bends the shank so that it will stand on its edge in combination with the packing device. The end attained in both machines is the same, and the mechanism is substantially the same, or the equivalent. In the patent in suit the blank falls to the table by the action of gravity, after being operated upon by the forming dies. In the defendant's machine the wOl'king faces of the forming dies are horizontal, so that gravity cannot take the shank from the forming dies. Means are therefore provided to push the shank from the dies; and, as it is necessary for the shank to be on its edge, the forward end of the table is so shaped that in pushing the blank forward it will turn from a flat to an edgewise position. Tho devices are in substance the same, and the differences of construction are insufficient, in our opinion, to relieve the defendant from the charge of infringement. Though the invention of Hyslop is limited in its scope, we think it fairly patentable. He was the first to attach a packing device to a machine for making shoe-shanks. Let a decree be entered for the complainants, for an injunction and account, as prayed for in their bill. Decree for complainants.
THE E. B. WARD, Jr. 1 CARLSDOTTER and others v. THE E. B. WARD, Jr. 1
(Circuit Oourt, E. D. Louisiana. .March 27, 1885.)
COLLTSTON'-DAMAGES FOR DEATHS OF RELATIVES.
Relatives of persons whose lives have been lost by reason of a collision upon the high seas are entitleet to recover, under the general admiralty law, from the offending vessel damages for the loss of the society and support of their deceased relatives, and for the value of their personal effects.
Admiralty Appeal. See 17 FED. REP. 456. John D. Rouse and Wm. Grant, for libelants, appellants. Wm. S. Benedict and A. J. Murphy, for claimants, appellees. PARDEE, J. This cause came on to be heard at this time upon the and evidence, and was argued by counsel, whereupon, and in consideration thereof, the court doth find the following facts:
(1) The steam-ship E. B. Ward, Jr., owned by Oteri & Bro., of New Orleans, and the Swedish bark Henrik, were, on the twentieth day of January, 1882, in the Gulf of Mexico. about 95 miles off Cape San Antonio, Island of Cuba; the steam-ship proceeding on her voyage, under steam, in a direction south-east by south, and the bark proceeding, under sail, north by west.
IReported by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.
THE E. B. WARD, JR.
Both vessels were fully equipped, and carried the usual lights. At 9 o'clock P. M. the vessels sighted each other. The bark first saw the Ward off her port bow, first her white light, then both lights, and the only evidence prouuced by claimants-that of the man at the wheel of the Ward-shows that the red or port light of the Henrik was the first and only light seen by the Ward. It follows, therefore, that the ·Ward was approaching the Henrik across her course, when the two vessels came in sight of each other, some time before the collision. In this situation, the wheel of the Ward was put to starboard, and afterwards hard a-port. the vessel changing her course about one and one-half points under each. While the wheel/was bard a-port, the Ward struck the Henrik amid-ships, sinking her in a very few minutes. The sailors mentioned in the libel (part of the crew of the Henrik) went down with her, and were drowned. (2) The bark Henrik kept her course after she sighted the Ward, being the same course she had been sailing since 5 o'clock P. M., until the collision was inevitable, when she luffed, but was struck before she had changed her course very materially. As the wind was blOWing from the east, and the sails of the Henrik were close set, the lulling had a tenuency to check her speed and to prevent a collision. The master of the Ward admits that the two vessels would have come together head on, if the Henrik had not luffed. This being the case, the action of the bark was not a fault, even if an error of judgment, since it was.caused by the immediate presence of a peril caused by the Ward. (3) The Ward was running at the rate of nine miles an hour when she first saw the lights of the bark, but did not check her speed, when, according to the answer of the claimants and the conduct of her officers, tltere seems to have been doubt as to the true position of the bark. No attempt wasrnade to stop, by the officers of the Ward, until after the collision actually occurred.. (4) The steam-Ship E. B. Ward. Jr., was solely in fault for the collision with the Henrik, (5) The libelants are the legal representatives of the three sailors named in the libel, who lost their lives in said collision, in manner and form as alleged in said libel. (6) The said sailor, Carl Peterson, was born on the --dayof--, 1837, and was 45 years old at the time of his death, and was earning £2 15s. per month. Gustof Leander Janssen was born on the eighth day of April, 1860, and was 22 years old at death, and was earning £2 per month. Erick Anderson Holm was born the fifteenth day of January, 1844, and was 38 years old, and was earning £3 per month. Each of said sailors was of good moral character, industrious, and contributed to the support of libelants. Each of said sailors lost clothing and personal effects of the value of $75, and the said Holm lost in addition his chest of tools, valued at $480. (7) That by the said wrongful and negligent acts of the said steamer E. B. ·Ward, Jr., her master and crew, the said libelant Christina Carlsdotter, widow and legal heir of Carl Peter Peterson, in the manner and means by which said I'eterson came to his untimely death as heretofore found, has suffered damages for the loss of the services, society, comfort, and support of her said husband in the sum of $2,000, and for personal effects in the sum of $75. (8) That by the said wrongful and negligent acts of said steamer, her master and crew, the said libelants John Gustaf Janssen and his wife, Charlotta Jacksdotter Jonssen, surviving father and mother and sale heirs at law of said Gustaf Leander Janssen, in the manner and means by which said Jonssen came to his untimely death t..EI heretofore found, have suffered damages for the loss of services, society, comfort, and support of their said son in the sum of $2,000, and for personal effects in the sum of $75. (9) That by the said wrongful and negligent acts of the said steam-Ship, her master and crew, the said libelants Ulrika Beata Holm, mother, and Eva Maria Holm, sister, and both heirs of Erick Anderson Holm, in the mannt/t'
and means by which said Holm carne to his untimely death as heretofore found, have suffered damages for the loss of services, society, comfort, and support of their said son and brother in the sum of $2,000, and for personal effects in the sum of $182.20.
KELL1: V. OTIS.
and others v. OTis. 1
(Circuit Court, E. D. Louisiana. January 30, 1885.)
SEAMEN'S WAGES-REV. ST.
H 4577-4586. The general maritime law, which, in a case of scminauJrf/!Jium, or where the vessel was condemnell and sold as too unseaworthy to be repaired, gave discharged seamen passage home and wages up to the time of reaching home, is rnoditied by the statutes of the United States which provide for all cases of disof seamen in foreign ports, and, in case of destitute seamen, their return home, by the consular agents of the United States, at the expense of a fund derived from tbeone-third of the three months' extra wages collected by the consuls or agents from aU American ships discharging seamen in foreign ports, except where ships are stranded or wrecked, or condemned as unfit for service. See sections 4577-4586. Hev. St.
Admiralty Appeal. R. King Cutler and E. D. Craig, for libelants. W. S. Benedict and A mbrose Smith, for defendant. PARDEE, J. About December, 1882, the schooner John G. Whipple, of which the succession of Peter A. Fronty was the owner, and of which Henry Otis was the mortgagee in possession and control, sailed from this port for the port of Minatitlan, Mexico, with a cargo of lumber. With more or less trouble from leaking the voyage was made in safety, and the cargo delivered. A return cargo of mahogany timber was loaded, consigned to said Otis, nnd, on the 14th day of February, 1883, the said schooner sailed from said port of MinatitIan for the port of New Orleans. At the time of sailing, according to the sworn protest of the master, mate, and carpenter,-the two latter being libelants herein,-the said schooner was tight, staunch, and strong; had her cargo well and sufficiently stowed and secured; had her h9,tcheB well calked and covered; and was well and sufficiently manned, etc. On the sixteenth of February she encountered heavy head seas and storms, which so distressed her through laboring and leaking that the master, on consultation with his officers and crew, abandoned the voyage and turned back to the port of departure, which was safely reached on the seventeenth day of February. On the 17th the master appeared before the American consul and made protest, which on the 20th was and was signed and sworn to by the master, mate, and carpenter. On the same Jay, on application of the master, the consul ordered a survey, which resulted in recommending the forth· with discharge of the cargo to ascertain the cause and extent of the leaks. After the discharge of cargo, on the first of March, the consul ordered another survey, which, on March 3d, resulted in finding as follows:
"We find five planks on each side started from her transom, main boom broken, her jib-stay parted, the after-port chain-plate broken, and the bolts 1003e; her seams from light-water mark to plankshire and wood ends open, causing great leaks; her water-way seams we find very much open, and there is no doubt that the seams sprung open in the sea-way, causing her to leak
I Reported by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.