are being paid out daily, to pensioners upon claims aided and su pported by oaths administered by justices 'of the peace, in all the states and territories, and in pursuance of the prescribed regulations referred to. The practice in such cases has been too long established and recognized by the government to now hold that the justice of the peace, Loy, did not have competent authority to administer the oath to the defendant set out in the indictment. This view is in harmony with the reasoning in U. S, v. Bailey, 9 Pet. 268,'and not in conflict with U. S. v. Curtis, 107 U. S. 671, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 507, cited by counsel for defendant. The motion in arrest of judgment will be overruled.
qui tam, etc., v.
(Distriot qowrt, .8. D. Net/) York.
May 19, 1887.)
ACTIONS FOR PENALTIES-PATENTs-TIlIIE OF STAl\IPING-DElIIunRER.
Upon statutory actions for penalties brought under se.ction' 4901 of the United States Revised Statutes; for stamping patented articles without consent of the patentees, etc., the pleader, in accordance with the state practice adopted by section 914, Rev. St. U. S., is not required to allege the stamping to have been on a precise dar, 'as at common law; an averment that it Was done "in or about June, 1886," is sufficient on demurrer.
SAlliE-STATUTE TO BE PLEADED WITH CERTAINTY.
Under section 1897 of the New Xork Code of Procedure, the statute relied on, and the section thereof, must be referred to with certainty. It is insufficient to refer to different statutes, without specifying which.
SAlIIE-PLEADING-ESSENTIAL FACTS-STATUTORY EXCEPTIONS.
All the essential facts must be. distinctly alleged. Exceptions forming a part of the statute constituting the offense should be negatived. In this case, held, on ·demurrer, necessary to allege (a) that the defendant had no patent; (b) that the stamped article contained the patented that it was stamped without consent of the plaintiff's "assigns or representatives."
John A. Wiedersheim Cb., for complainant. Stanley, Olarke Smith, .for defendants.
BROWN, J. This action is brought to recover $100,000 penalties for the alleged offense of stamping certain patented articles made by the defendants without the patentee's consent, under section .4901 of the United States Revised Statutes. A demurrer to the complaint has been interposed on various grounds. This offense is not made criminal by statute, although penaljand it is therefore to be distinguished, in some important respects, from the case cited of Boyd v. U. S., 116 U.S. 634, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 524.. The 8ufficiencyof the complaint is to be determined according to the rules applicable to civil actions, and according to the state practice in similar or analogous actions at common law, and not according to the analogies of criminal procedure·
BANGS, Ex'x, and others.
«(}iqocuit Oourt, D. MassachUlJetis. June 10, 1887.)
PATENTS FOB INvENTIONS-IMPROVEMENTS IN SEWING-MACHINEs-INFRINGEMENT.
Letters patent No. 24.022 were granted May 17, 1859. and extended seven years from May 17, 1878. to Joshua Gray, for improvements in sewing-machines. The first claim of the, patent related to an improvement in the details of construction of the feeding mechanism, in which four movements are required,-upwards when engaging the cloth, forwards when feeding, downwards, when disengaging, and backwards to the point of beginning. The patent described a long reciprocating bar. actuated by a rock-shaft, and engaging the feed,bar, which transversed it. The longitudinal motions were given by two inclines on the sides of the reciprocating bar, acting in connection with two, stops on the feed-bar, one adjustable and the other fixed. The upward movement of the feed was caused by an incline on the face of the reciprocating bar, acting with the feed-bar. The feed-bar was moved upwards, against the pressure, of Ii spring, which forced, the feed downwards after the'upward movement ceased. The defendant made sewing-machines in which the feeding mechanism had two cams, arranged one above the other, on a vertical rotating shaft. The cams were so that one moved a bar or rod back and forth, and the other from side to side. At the end of the rod was the feed-bar, whicb closely embraced the rod ,between two fixed jaws. Tbe rod had an adjustable fulcrum about midway between the driving end of the machine and the feed-bar. Held, that the motion and operation of the defendant's device were not sufficiently similar to that described in the Gray patent to constitute an infringement.
S. SAME-EQUIVALENTS-DIFFERENT MODlll OF OPERATION.
While a cam and a wedge are regarded as plain equivalents, yet the use of two cams in the defendants' device, in place of the two inclines or wedges in the plaintiff's patent, are not to be regarded'as the substitution of equivalents, considering their different modes of operation in connection with the rods as arranged in the defendants' machine .
T. W. Clarke and Geo. O. Hodges, for complainant. Browne &; Browne, for defendants.
,COLT, J. The defendants are charged with infringement of the first clabn of letters patent No. 24,022, granted May 17, 1859, and extended seven years from May 17, 1873, to Joshua Gray, for improvements in sewing-machines. The specification says: "My invention is upon that class of sewing-machines which form a double looped stitch, with two threads, and is designed to attain precision and certainty.of action with the greatest' simplicity of mechanism, and consists in certain details of construction, which will be now fully set forth and described." These details of construction covered by the first claim relate to an improved feeding mechanism. The feed of a sewing-machine should have four movements, upwards when engaging the cloth, forwarqs when feeding, downwards when disengaging, and backwards to the point of beginning. The patent describes a long reciprocating bar actuated by a rock-shaft. The bar extends from the driving end of the machine, and engages the feed-bar, which is transverse to it. The reciprocating bar