tinuous application to the whole enterprise, whe'n it appears that was the purpose for which the same was entered upon; nor was it neces· sary that Clements should have had a warrant to make his enterprise legal and under the protection of the 'statute in such case made and provided. The court also gives you that request. I have referred to the fact that the crime alleged was a very serious offense, but this must not prejudice you against the prisoner. It becomes all the more important that you should consider well the testimony before you bring in a verdict. The citizens must respect the laws, and, if you believe, from the evidence, that this law has been violated as alleged,you should find the defendant guilty; if not, you should find him not guilty. No government can exist unless the officers who seek to enforce its laws are protected. If such conduct as that described in this indictment is permitted to go unwhipt of justice, the community will be demoralized; every man will be affected; the prosperity of the country shaken; lawlessness will prevail on all sides. While this is true, you should be especially careful not to confuse the importance of the accusation with the question of the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. No matter how serious is the against him, he is entitled to the same even.handed justice from you that he might expect in the most trivial and inconsequential affair. The court ad. jures you to be perfectly impartial between this government and the accused, and will now commit the case to your hands.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and a motion for a new trial was made and overruled.
UNITED STATES 'D. WILLIAMSON.
(Di8trict Oourt, E. D. Vi'1'ginia. February, 1886.)
POSTAL LAwS-PROSEOUTION bF POSTMASTER FOR USING STAMPS IN PuRouASB OF GOODS.
In prosecutions of postmasters for using postage stamps in the purchase of merchandise, under chapter 259, 20 St. at Large, p, 141, the government must prove that the stamps so used had been received by the postmaster from the post-office department.
Indictment for Violation of Postal Laws. Chapter 259 of volume 20 of the United States Statutes at Large, p. 141; declares that no postmaster intrusted with the sale or custody of postage stamps shall use or dispose of them in the payment of debts or purchase of merchandise. The indictment in this case charged that the defendant was United States postmaster at Tappahaunock, Virginia, "intrusted with the sale and custody of postage stamps," and did a.t, on, etc.;\ "unlawfully use and dispose of one hundred [one-
UNITED STATES V. WII,LIAMSON.
cent] and one thousand [two-cent] postage stamps in the purchase of merchandise, and did unlawfully sell and dispose of said postage stamps otherwise than as provided by law," etc. The case was given to the jury, and proof made that $21 in value of postal one and two cent stamps were, on a day named, mailed in a letter by the defendant to a house in Baltimore, in payment for merchandise ordered by tho postmaster in the same letter. It was not proved that the stamps thus mailed for the purpose mentioned were stamps which the defendant had received, as postmaster, from the government of the United States, "intrusted" to him in his official capacity. There was strong ground for inferring that the stamps shown in evidence, from their fresh condition and from being still in the original sheets, had in point of fact been received by the defendant from government as postmaster; but there was no positive evidence of their identity, and of their having been so obtained. When the prosecution had rested their case, it was moved by defendant's counsel that the jury be instructed that, in order to conviction, it was necessary that the government should prove that the stamps used as charged in the indictment had been intrusted to the defendant by the government, in his character as postmaster. J. O. Gibson, U. S. Atty., and James Lyons, Asst. U. S. Atty., for the prosecution. Edmund Waddill, for the defense.
HUGHES, J., held that there must be proof that the stamps used had been received by the postmaster officially from the government. The phrase "of them," employed in the statute, confined its operations to stamps "intrusted" to the postmaster; and unless the indictment charged, and the evidence proved, that the stamps used by the postmaster for the purchase of merchandise had been received by him from the government, there could be no conviction. The law ought to have forbidden postmasters from using any stamps whatever, from whatever source procured, in payment of debts and tile purchase of merchandise. Verdict of not guilty.
CELLULOID MANUF'G CO.
AMERICAN ZYLONITE CO.
(Oircuit Oourt, S.
n. New York.
March 5, 1886.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-CELLULOID.
Letters patent No. 156,353, of October 27, 1874, to John W. Hyatt and Isaiah S. Hyatt, assignors to the Celluloid Manufacturing Oompany, sustained against the defenses of want of novelty, non-patentability, and public use.
SAME-UTILITY OF THE INVEN'rION.
To the process set forth in this patent. and the knowledge and skill which grew out of an acquaintance with it, is due the present commercial success of zylonite or celluloid as an article which can be devoted to a very great variety of uses.
In Equity. Frederic H. Betts and William D. Shipman, for complainant. Horace M. Ruggles and Benjamin F. 'l'hurston, for defendants. SHIPMAN, J. This is a bill in equity to restrain the defendants from the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 156,353, granted October 27, 1874, to John W. Hyatt and Isaiah S. Hyatt, assignors to the complainant, for "an improvement in the manufacture of celluloid." The defenses are want of novelty, non-patentability, and public use, in the United States, of the alleged improvement for more than two years before the application for the letters patent, with the consent and allowance of the patentees. Under the defense of want of novelty, the patents which the defendants introduced in evidence and relied upon were three American letters patent to Daniel Spill: No. 91,377, dated June 15, 186l3; No. 97,454, dated November 30, 1869; and No. 101,175, dated March 22, 1870. An understanding of the case depends materially upon a knowledge of the state of the art at the date of the patent in suit, and I therefore give a brief history of the article which is now known aa "zylonite" or "celluloid." Pyroxyline or gun-cotton, "an explosive obtained by immersing vegetable fiber in nitric and sulphuric acids, and subsequent drying," (Knight, Mech. Diet.,) was invented by Schonbein in 1846. The great anticipations which were originally had of the invention, as a substitute for gunpowder, were never rea· lized. It proved to be too dangerous and uncertain to be used as an explosive material. In 1847 or 1848, Dr. Maynard, of Boston, discovered that it could be dissolved in alcohol and ether, and used as a vehicle for medicines, and as a substitute for sticking plaster, and gave the name "collodion" to this solution. Passing by the introduction of collodion by Frederick Scott Archer, in 1851, to the art of photography, Alexander Parkes, of England, discovered, in 1855, that a solution of pyroxyline, mixed with other articles, could be
by Charles C. LinthicuIll, Esq., of the Chicago bar.