.GRIFFITH V. SEGAR.
the 'testimony that he' :tookuthe money with ,felonious intent; that 'the originalJakmg must haiveibeen with1'mtent to'steal. 'Where words are ·nsea ina statute,ameaning'nJ.'IlStbe given to 'each word, if possible. Words are not to be takenas;synonymous, unlessthey are so ,necessarily. Congress" in using these ,two words j .,...11 "tak.e j "--with. ,the; disjunctive, must have intended them to bear different meanings, else both would not have been used. If you find from the evidence that the defendant took the <;ontents of this letter animo furandi. with intent to steal them, he comes within the prohibition of this section; if you find that he took the contents, borrowing them, hoping and expecting to return them, making temporary use of them, he also comes within the prohiof the statute, I!lay be guilty. ,.1he purpose of the seetion IS to prevent andpuIllsh any Interference WIth the contents of a letter in the custpdy of tlle ID¥.
«(HrC'Uit (Jom, N. D. New York. February fI, 1887.)
PATB1'r'f$ lion hmtNTIoNs-tNnuNGm.rENT- SEVERAL PATBNTS- PLBADI1'rGMULTIFAlUOUSNEBS. .
A bill in equity for infringement. founded upon five separate pMents, containing in the aggregate sixteen claims, which does not contain an that the inventions are 'capable of conjoint ulle. or that the structure manufactured and sold by deferidants combines all of the patented features. is bad . for multifariousness. ' '
In Equity_On Demurrer to bill. Edwin H. Risley, for ThommJ Ric1widaoo,for defendants. This is an equity action for infringement, founded upon five separate patents, containing in the aggregate sixteen claims, granted to the complainant for improvements in folding beds and The defendants demur on the ground that the bill is multifarious, no reason appearing for .uniting five distinct causes of action in one suit. There is, no allegation in the bill that the inventions are capable of conjoint use, or that the structure manufactured and sold by the defendants combiriesallof the patented features. The averments in that behalf would be sustained by proof that the defendants mallUfactured nnd sold five separate beds, each of which infringed one of the patents in question, but no one of which inmngedall of them, or more than one of them. The autb:6rities are quite uniform· in declaring such. a bill insuffiCient. Hayea v. Dayton, 8 Fed. Rep. 702; NeUis v. McLanahan, 6 Fish. 286; Nourse v. Allen, 4 Blatchf. 376; Horman Patent ManuJ'g Co. v·. BrOQklyn OUy R. Co., 15 Blatchf. 444; Barn('f}J v. Peck, 16 Fed. Rep. 413; Lilliendahl v. Det'uriJkr, 18 Fed. Rep. 176; Walk. Pat.§ 417.
It would seem, from a C8bUal of tbe patents in question. that it would bardly bepossibletocombine.in one structure aU tbe in.. ventiODl! therein claimedjbut j if 'the defendants do so infringe, tbere should be 'an·appropriate allegation to that, effect. Tbe,deI1lurrer is allowed, the complainant·to amend within 20 days.
(Dilftrict (Jourt, 8. D. New York.
January 17, 1887.)
PAYMENTS-APPLICATION OF-BOTTOMRY BOND-GENERAL ACCOUNT-SUIP'S AGENTS-NECESSARY ADVANCES-:'MASTER'S DRAFT DISCOUNTED.
Payments by the debtor will be applied according to the intent of the parties, where that can be determined with reasonable certainty.1
. ,':. .
The steamer M., belonging to the Stettin-Lloyd line, having arrived in New York, subject toa bottomrI bemd, S."the owper of the lipe, being in embarrassed circumstances, engaged' W; & Co. to act as resident agents of the line , ip provided they,wouldarrange. to takeupaIl,d hold the b.ottomry " bond,' to which W. & Co. agreed; having first arranged that tl;le master oftha .M. upon S. for £1,70Q.i!1 favor of.W.& Co. payable in Germany, four day,s M.'s arrf,val there, which draft was discopnted for W. & Co.'s ben$f.it.A,draftwll$dJ;!'wp. byW. & CO."also I,n order to procure the Iliscount,and t1;le next day W. ,8fCo. UR tP'E!, bottomry bond, advancing therefor about $5,000, the excess 6ver the money's received upon the draft. The proceeds of the draft were put by W. & Co. to the credit of S. 'in their "general account." A different special account was kept, as respects the bottomry. W. & Co. soon after made large advances.infttting out the vessel, and accepted various accommodation for, S. ill the current business. Held, upon the circumstances and contlictibt evidence, that the draft 'was designed to aid W. & Co., both in taking the as'slgnment of the bottomry bond and also in, m,aking,t,heir, necessary,"advan,ces i,n,,fi, tting ou,t the, ships of the line for their frQm port; tlllltt it wall designed be applied, first, against these riecess!iW'adV'sncesand li'l1bilities'f\lCurred by W.& Co. in the current businegs" aner the balance only; ,together with any balance of profits from the curTentlwsinqss, wall ,to be applied upop,bottomfY,;. that the proceeds of the draft were not a payment by S., llor hisnioneys, until the draft was actually flaid by him;' 'and at :the date of'such payment, W. & Oo.'sadvances and liabilIties in the 'current business b'eingequalto the proceeds Of the draft, none of it was thep, ,applicable ,upon. the bottomry lien; that, anapcount having been made upt6 the first of January fi>llowing, upon which a halance was stated 8S'dueto W. & Co, upon "all the various accounts," the credit to S. appearing in theit· genera) account, must be' deemed applicable' to thebotto1Dry lien, after discharging-the debts belonging to the current bl1siness. Held,fU'l'ther, that two'speCial debit accounts, one of them being a draft of £600. the SUbject of one of the above suits, being !found to belong strictly to current business, properlyJormed apart of the general account, and the, credit balance on that acc;:ount .applicable t);lereto. and that the draft, of £600 was thereby paId' andextlllguished. .. , .
Ed,'wardiH. Hobbs, for lib61ant.
See Magarity v. Shipman, (Va.) IS. E. Rep. 109.