it myself than. to attempt to get the opinion of a jury. r have no desire to hear this case. When it comes to a hearing, I hope Judge HALLETT will take it, for I know he is very conservative on these questions of patent law. If it comes to me, I think I would rather dispose of it than ask the aid of a jury. The application for a jury will also be refused.
ELEC'fRICPROTECTIVE CO'. ?1. METROPOLlTAN BURGLAR ALARM CO.
(Oireuit Court, 8. D. NewYor"
July 14, 188'7.)
PATEN'l'S FOB INVENTIONB-'-INJU:NCTION-DIBBOLVING.
Where a preliminary injunction, restraining the infringement of a patent, has been allowed to stand for three years. and it is within, the power of the patties to bring the cause to tlnalhearlng, the court will allow the to rem&;in until such hearing, and will deny a motion to dissc>lve it, which is made on tile ground that the invention c>f tile patent in controversy was described in a, prior patent to the same Inventor, and' that a' certain authority was not before the court when the dnjuncUc>D wl\sgranted.
In Equity. Samuel A.. Duncan, for plaintiff. G. G. Frelinghuysen. for defendant.
WHEELER, J. The preliminary granted herein has stood nearly three years. M<>tion ill now made to dissolve iton the grouJid that the invention of this patent was despribed in a prior patenUo the same inventor, and on the authority of Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354, 5 Sup. Ct. ReP. 174, which was not befdrethecourt when the injunction was granted. The question involved was argued in Butterworth \'. Hill, 114 U.S. 128,5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 796, andis, said not to have been considered, as the :case was disposed of on other grounds. Since then the question has been very fully considered, and the 'authorities, including Mahn v. Ha1'(Wood, reviewed in EaStern Paper':Bag Qo.v. Standard PaperBag Co., 30 Fed Rep. 63. The conclusion was there reached:that such description ina prior patent does not, of itself alone, invalidate a subsequent patent for the invention so described, applied for in due Upon this state of the authorities, and in view of the long time during which the injunction has been in force, and the readiness with whioh the cause may be brought to final hearing, it is deemE'd. best that the injunction should remain until that time. Motion
TlIEHAVERTON. 1 .DEVERE and others
(Oircuit CoUrt, E. D.LouiBiana. January 28,1887.)
In a case of collislon'on the high seas, between a steam-ship and a pilot-boat, the steam-ship was held to be In fault for not having and maintaining a proper lOOkout, and because her officer in charge absented himself so long a time from his proper position on the main-bridge. during which the collision occurred;and the pilot-boat was held to be in fault for not a white light at her mast-head, ,visible all around the horizon, and in not eXhibiting a flare-up light or I\t short intervals while she was cruising, and in not taking any precautIOns by way of unlashing her helm, and calling the watch :below, When it became 'apparent that the collision was imminent.-all of 'Which faults of both vessels contributed to the collision, and therefore the , damages were divided.
COLLISION-MuTUAL FAULT-DIVISION OF DAMAGES.
I. Sut:E-PlLOT-BoATS. When. a 'Pilot-boat is crQising. looking, or waiting for ships pilots, although hundreds of miles off the port to which it belongs, it is a "pllot-ves8el, c;lDgagedon hentation ,on pilotage duty," within the meaning of article 9 oftheact of congress approved March 3,1885, (chapter 854, 23 St. at Large.)
Admiratty Appeal. John D. Rauae and William Grant, for libelant. Jarne8 McOonnell, for .cla.imants.
I ' ·
PARDEE, J. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of rec· ord, ,and was argued, whereupon the court finds the following as the facts in the case: (l),A,bout half past 2 o'clock on the morning of the sixth of November, 1885, the steam-ship Haverton collided with and sunk the schooner or pilotboatMaryand Catharine at a point oft the coast of New Jersey, about 22 nautical ,miles easterly from Absecom and about 75 miles southerly from Sandy Hook. The night was dark. but clear. so tb'at tbere was no difflculty in seeing sbips'ligbts properly exposed. No ligbt-houses nor coast lights were in sight. The wind was ligbt. and from the S. S. W. The sea was smooth. except there was considerable swell from tbe south-west. (2) Tbe schooner Mary and Catharine was a. New York pilot-boat of 38.64 tons burden, about 64 feet long, and for some time prior to and at the time ot the said collision sbe was cruising in above viciDity, hove to on the starboard tack. under double reefed main and foresail bonnets oft the jib and stay-sail, the stay-sail sheet hauled to windward. and the belm lashed amid-ships, under a headway of about two knots an bour, leeway not appearing. on a course S. byE. i E. (3) The Mary and Catharine had on board four New York pilots, a crew of one seaman. one boat-keeper, one cook, and two young men rated as boys. The watch on deck was supposed to be made up of one pilot (Stoffreiden) and one bOY, (Peterson,) but, as a matter of fact. Stoftreidell was below, lying clown, and Peterson was keeping the watch.- Peterson was 21 years old. and ,had been 'following the sea for nine years. All the Ief:\t of the people aboard :were below, and asleep. '
lReported by Joseph P.Hornor, Esq., ofthe New Orleans