bhiditlg? There was no invention inJocating the stitches at that point, foritwQuld almost require an exercise of the inventive faculties tn- find any other,place to put them. Two or more pieces, of cloth, bound on the edges, are laid upon another piece, and held in proper position by means ,(If a button. ,A party who ris ,aware that similar fabrics have been heldjnposition, by sewing instead of buttoning, substitutes the former for, the latter mode. Clearly this is not invention. Take an tion. Let us assume that, twC), intelligent workmen were employed in the" complainants' manufact6ry. in 1872, the one wearing the woolen shirtiw.ith shield-shaped bound bosom, described by the defendants' witnesses, thie' othel' the bound diokiey, made by the complainants. The tab which holds, the latter to, the collar ';button breaks or becomes inoperative; and :its ,wearer, after examining the woolen shirt, of his companion, sews the to the body of his shirt by a -line of stitches through the binding. D.6eshe by this act become an, inventor? !Is the operation one which taxes the brain, or calls into being ;"that intuitive faculty of 'the mind" whioh the supreme court regards' as necessary to patentable novelty? HoUi8tcrv. Benedict Manufg Co.; 113 U. S. 59, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 717. If so, it mightalrnost be said that he who, by means ofa row of tacks through its binding, attaches to the wall a map which previously had been suspended in the same position by a' cord, is entitled to rank as an inventor. It is entirely clear that, under the decisions of the supreme' court, this action cannot be maintained. The record discloses less invention than was shown in any of the following cases: PennSylvaniaR.Oo. v. Locomotive Truck Co., 110 U. S. 490, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 220;; Stimpson v. ,Woodman, 10 Wall. 117; Stephenson v. Brooklyn By. Co., 114U. S. 149,5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 777; Yale Lock Co. v. Greenleaf, 117 U.S. '554, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 846; Thatcher Heating Co. v. Burti8, 39 O.G. 587,7' Sup.' Ct. Rep. 1034; Estey v. Burdett, 109 S. 633, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep; 531; Clark Pomace-Holder Go.v. Ferguson, U9 U. S. 335, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 382; Phillips v. Detroit, 111 U. S. 604, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580; Gardner:v.:Herz, 118 U. S;;180,,6 Sup. Ct. The bill must be dismissed,with costs.
CLUETT and others
·(fJirouit Court, S;
York. June 7, 1887.)
COXE, J. A decree dismissing the bill, with costs, should be entered in thi. cause upon the authority of Cluett v. Claflin, ante, 9 2 1 . , ·
SULLIVAN'll. THE NEl'TUNO,
(Di8t'l'ict Oourt, 8. D. New York.
April 4, 1887.)
8EAMEN-,PERSONAL INJURIES-DEFECTIVE TA()KLE:
A vessel and her owners are liable to seamen .for injuries caused by the use of weak and dangerous tackle by the order of the ship'li officers, after notice of its defects. '
2. SA.M:l!l-CABE SUTEn-,RuI!TURE.
The ,libelant, a weakly lad of 18, was tending the sling in the hold while the elld was unloading. The iron hook, by which the tackle was attached to the yard above, broke, and ,the sling fell upon the libelant, injuring him se· verely; causing, as, alleged. ",rupture near each groin. The hook broke in consllquence of a,flaw. which was indicated by its appearance, and was pointed out to the mate. HeliJ" that the vessel was liable; but. upon disputed evidence ssto the -lad's previous condition, $600 besides expen,ses was allowed.
In Admil:alty. , K. Rill, Wing &; Shoudy, and H. Putna'¥J'1" for libelant. Sidnt!Y Chubb, for claimant.
BROWN, J. On the thirtieth of March, 1886; the British steamer Neptuno, being at the port of Graytown unloading cargo, the libelant, a youtJh 18 years old, was directed by the mate to tend the sling at the hatch. between-decks. While engaged in this work, a load of about 300 pounds,which had been hoisted by the tackle nearly up to the mainyard, fellupon him, and knocked him insensible. On being picked up, his right forearm was found to be fractured, one of the bones of the right hand was broken, and a se,rious rupture disclosed in each groin. I think the evidence shows that the captain ofteredhim hospital treatment at Graytowll, but the libelant preferred to come to New York with the ship. When the, steamer arrived. here, on the sixteenth of April, he was still weak,andl;liflabled. He could not turn his arm. On the 20th. while the master's arrangements for procuring him admission to the Long Island hospital were still, incomplete,' the libelant being then ashore with the ma8ter, !W'ho was then actually engaged in perfecting those arrangements foradm.i;ssion, some friends took the libelant in charge, and obtained his entry·into the same hospital on the 22d. Under these circumstances, I cannot regard the libelant's conduct as amounting to desertion exonerating the ship. The bones of the arm, being in very bad position, had to be refractured and resl'lt. The operation was entirely successful, and the libelant was discharged on the twenty-fourth of July with the free use of his arm. He still suffers from the hernia. The fall of the load arose from the breaking of the hook at the end of the tackle by which the sling was raised. Some negligence of the winchman and fellow-servant is suggested, in allowing the tackle to be carried. too far. The evidence, however, is not sufficient to allow the breaking