visions of,tbe act of 1872, in sofar as they applied to vessels in the coastwise trade, with the exceptions named in the repealing act. 23 Fed. Rep. 141. See; also, Scott v. Bose, 2 Low. Dec. 382. not repeal the provisions 2. The objection that ,the ,act of 1874 (lfthe .Revised Statutes taken frOnl the act of 187,2 can be readily disposed of. Thatabt of congress of June 22, 1874, provided that the Revised$tatutes should take effect as of December 1, 1873; and by section 5601 it was declared that acts passed sinoethat date should have full effect as if passed after the enactment of the ,Revised Statutes, and, "so far aS8uch acts vary from or cOnflict ",ith any provision contained in said Revision, they are tohayeeffect as subsequeut statutes, and as, repealing any,portion ofthe Rl3visiol1 inconsistent therewith." U. S. v. Rain, The act,relit;ld on by the defense in this case was pasl'ed June 9, 1874: It therefore operated to repeal the provisions of the Revised Statutes taken from the act ·of 1872. It necessarily described the act repealed by its title as it then stood in the statutes; for the Revised Stt;.tutes, which its :provisions, hl!-d not been passed. The demurrer is sustained.
UNITED STATES"'. BONHAM.
(District Oourt, D. South Oarolina. . August 1, 1887.)
INToXICATING :LIQUORS lI'ENSE.
To constiiute the without haiving paid the .special tax, the accused 'must have procured the liquor 1301d, with intent to retail it, or, having it on hand, formed the intent to ,retail it, and carried out that intent by one or more acts. It is not enough liquor on hand' fOr his own use he let others have it as a that, matter of kllldness or neighborly feeling, although he, took money from them for the a.ccommodation.
SAME-SALE BY AGENT-WIFE AND CONCUBINE.
BUSINJj:I\S OF RETAILI;Jlf,G-;'"-AcTS CONSTITUTING O'F7 " " , offense of carrying on the business of Q retail liquor dealer
The presumption that a wife who, on her' husband's premises, and in his presence,and with his knowledge, makes illegal.sales at retail of intoxicating liquors, does so as his agent, does not attach to such sales so made by a womanliving with a man as his concubine; and, to authorize the conviCtion of the man for such sales by the concubine. the jury must be satisfied, from the evidence, that she was acting as the agent of the. accused when she made the sales.
Indictment for Unlawful Retailing of Liquor. Mr. Youmans, Dist. Atty., for the United States. M. L. Rcmham, Jr., for defendant. ' SIMONTON, J., (charging thejtllry.) The defendant is indicted for carrying on the business of a retail liquor dealer without having paid the special tax. Thegovemment have introduced three witnesses who swear to purchases of distilled spirits .at the house of defendant on three dif,
BATE REFRIGERATING CO. V. GILLETT.
ferent occasions. Two of ,them say that they purchased from Peggy . Bonham; one of them, that he purchased from defendant. Peggy Bonham lives with the defendant. Some of the witnesses say that they think she was his wife; others swear that he never married her, and that she was his concubine. In orderto convict the defendant, the jury must be satisfied, from the evidence-First, that he sold the liquor as charged. If sales were made' by Peggy Bonham in his and were with his knowledge, and Peggy was his agent in doing s(), the his. If Peggy was his wife, the law will presume that she did this as his'agent; if Peggy is nofhis wife, then the jury must be satisfied, from the evidence, that she as his agent,-the eame does not arise as would arise were she his wife. State v. Col1JinB, 1. McCord,355; ,0i,ty 'Council 'v. Van Roven, 2, McCord, 466. Second, if the jury fui4 tllafthe.sales were made by defendant himself, or,py his agent,then they must further be satisfied from the evidence that the d(jfendant had the liquor 'on hand for the pUrP9se ofseUing it at retail. The facts proved must indicate that the defendan.t' had procured the, liquor with the intent to retail it, or, having"it on hand, had formed. the intent to 'retail it,and' carriedout the intent by one or more acts. If the defendant had the liquor on ,hand for his own use. and if he let .thewitn"lsses'have it as a matter of kindness, or from neighborly feeling,.he cannot be convicted,even if he took money, especially as no general practice has been proved. .
Co. v. GILLET» and others.
(Oircuit Oou1't, D. New J&r8e'J/. Augus.t 9,1887.)
PATENTs FOR INVENTIONS-VACATING 'AND REmSTATmG INJUNCTION-EFFECT . OF FOREIGN PATENT AND LITIGATIONl'
. An injunction granted upon rendering an interlocutory decree for complainant, in a suit f.or infr.ingement of a.;p.atent. was dissolved upon its being shown that there was a prior foreign patent for the same invention whose term hadexpired,and thereby terminated the life of the domestic patent, but such order of dissolu,tion was afterwards vacated"by the court by reason of the fact that a ·court.()f the foreign country had. since the' makuIg of such order, declared the foreign patent voidab initio. Such decree of the foreign court, declaring the foreign patent void, haviu!1;'afterwards been VaCll.ted by tb,e same court on the ground that it was obtained by collusion, held that the order dissolving the injunction should n.ow be reinstated. .
SAME-FoLLOWING FORMER DECISION IN CASE.
Upon a hearing on petition for such reinstatement before a jUdge other than the ope ,who origmally ordered tb;e dissolution of the injunction, held, that the decision of the former judge, holding that the provision of St. granted'for an invention 'which has'been preU. S. § 4887, that viouslypatented in a foreign countr, shall be so limited as toexpire.lj.t the Ilame time with the foreign patent,' includes foreign patents granted pending the application for the domestic patent. should be followed. without considering the question de novo; the question being at least a doubtful one. and , the former decision having been followed in other circuits. , , A Canadian patent takes effect from its. date. althougb the delivery6f' it to the patentee is postponed dn· accou'Ilt 'of' his neglect to file a model asre.:
SAME"-oFoREIGN PATENT-TAKING EFl'ECT--c-TERM OF.