Fed.. 667. So a settler, who, pending an aetion for the recovery of the value of timber' which he has wrongftillyollt a!;ld' Bold to defendants, becomes entitled to the lssltance:of the patent to the 'land b,Y.the payment of the purchase money in full, _ thereby defeats the right of the plaintltr,to recover, such action of the settler in securing,an,equitllble title being held to relate back to the original eutry. U. S. v. Stores, 14 Fed. Rep. 824. . MEASV311l 011' PAMAGES. In case ,a trespass public lands consisting in the wrongful cutting of timber thereon is inadvertent, the measure of damages is the. value of the timber in the trees j but in case the trespass is willful, the measure of damages is thll value of the property at the time the action is brought, with no deduction for the labor put forth and the expense incurred qyt1:te trespasser.. U.S. v. Williams, 18 Fed. Rep. 475. And an innocent purchaser from'a willful trespasser is liable for the full value of the timber at the time of the purchase. ' U. S. v. HeHner, 26 Fed. Rep. BO.
w: D. Michigan, N. D.
October I, 1887.)
Trespass on Government Lands, cutting and removing tim-
JACKSON,J. The presented On the moqpn for new trial in this, case substantially the, same as those considered, and determined in the foregoing case U.S. v. Murphy. ante, 876, and the conclusions reached in that case aie equally applicable to'this. The motion for a new trial is lngly overruled and ,
'UNITtD STATES V.
(JuSTONS ,DUTIES- INDIOTMENT FOR, F ALSlll BIJ,LS OF LADING. . ' . ',
The facdhai at the time a person'ent'ered merchandise lit the custom-house there were in existence, to his knowledge., several copies of the bills of lading presented by J:!,im..does notmakellis sWOrn statement, as required by Rev: St. U. S. 2841: tltai he does not kiiow ofot believe in the existother than those produced by him, a ence of any invoices or bills of false oath; as the other invoices or bills' of ladinlrintended by the statute -are bills of lading or invoices different from those presented, and not merely the copies thereof which by commeroiaJ usage or statute are required to be procured. ., . Swearing',with respect to a foreign entry of goods'
Indictment for at the custom-house.
, JohnT. O(J.lrey, U; S.
the United States.
J., (charging jury.) This defendant is indicted for false 'The facts of. case are not !'. It ,admitted that
he took, when entering certain merchandise at the custom-house, the owner's oath, ill the form ,presdribed' 'by- law. > 'Thisfonn requires him to swear that: "I do not know or believe in the existence of any invoice or bill of lading other than thOse now produced by me, and that they are in the state in which I actually received them." Rev. St. § 2841. When he took the oath therewe:re in existence two other copies 01' counterparts of this bill of lading presented by him, the master of this vessel having, according to immemorial custom, affirmed to three bills .of lad' ing, "all of this tenor and date, one of which being accomplished the rest to stand void." This fact appeared on the face of the bill of lading presented. With respect to the invoice, the law required it to be made in quadruplicate, each copy to be certified by the. United States consul at the port of shipment. Two of these copies are to be furnished to the party producing the invoice, one is to be retained by the consul, .and the other is to be by him transmitted to the surveyor or collector '8.t the port of delivery. The only question in this case is, did the fact that these copies ot counterparts of the documents presented by the defendant were in existence (a fact, of (}Ourse, well known to him' and the deputy collector who administered the oa.th) make his sworn statement that he did not know or believe in the existence of any invoice or' bill of lading"other" ilian those produced by him a false oath? It is plain to me that it did not. If it did, no entry of imported merchandise clin be made at the custom-house by either owner or consignee without false swearing; for bills of lading, like bills of exchange, are always signed ii> several parts. And the law requires that invoices shall be certified b)1 the oonsul in quadruplicll.te. It is evident that the other invoices or bills of lading, of the existence of which the party making the entry is obligee!' to swear he haB no knowledge or belief. are bills of lading or invoice" different from those presented by him, and not merely copies or coun terparts of those instruments which by universal commercial usage or by express statute are required to be procured. By contemplation of law all the bills of lading or invoices constitute but one instrument in several parts, just as a lease by indenture wherein the lessor and lessee each Tetains a counterpart is but one deed. It is absurd to suppose that congress, when prescribing the form of oath to be taken by owners or consignees Of imported merchandise, intended to make entry of the goodil impossible without false swearing. I direct you to render a verdict of not guilty.
SAWYEnCRnTAL BLuE Co. '11. HUBBAnD.
(Oircuit Oourt, D.1Jfo,88o,chu8eti8. September
Plaintiff used on the bottles, in which it sold liquid bluing, a bright metalliccap of tin, extending down ,over about half of the rim at the mouth of the botOe, the cap having six perforations. He!a, that defendant should be restrained from using for the sale of his bluing a similar cap on l,Jottles of the same shape and appearance as those of plaintiff. Where ,both parties are manufacturers of liquid bluing, the defendant may be restrained from using for the 8,81e of the bluing manufactured by him old bottles of the plaintiff having plaintiff's name upon them; following Evan8 v. Van Laer, ante, 1 5 3 . . .
SAME-USE OF OLD BOTTLES.
This was a bill in equity to defendant from infringing rights in the nature of a trade-mark, and to prevent unfair competition in business, and was heard upon a motion for a preliminary injunction. The facts appearing by the pleadings and affidavits were substantially as follows: About 1864 HenrySl!owyercommenced the manufacture of bluing in, the city of Boston, Massachusetts, and succeeded in establishing a large and remunerative which was carried on by him until 1880, when he transferred it, with all its assets, including its trade-marks and good-will, to the plaintiff" B.. corporation orgaBized under the laws of Maine, but having its principal place of business at Boston. Sawyer became the president of the company, and is a large stockholder. ,Among the bluings manufactl,lred by Sawyer, and afterwards by the plaintiff, is an article known as "Liquid Bluing," which since 1868 or 1869 has had a large sale, and haa been put up continuously in a special style of package of the following description: A bottle of light green color, having a flat body with rounded shoulders, and a neck about an inch terminating in a rim, or lip" upon one side of which is blown or moulqed in three lines, in large letters, the words, "Sawyer's Crystal Bluing." On top of the bottle is a bright melx'l1lic cap of tin extending down over about half the rim at the mouth of the bottle, and in the cap az;esix perforations. On the side of the bottle opposite the words" Sawyer's Crystal Bluing" is a largeovallabel, partly in white and partly in red and blue, with the words "Sawyer's Crystal Blue," "H. Sawyer, Boston, Mass. Copyright :;;ecured,J'together with "Directions" for using. The defendant was formerly in Sawyer's employ, but has for some time manufactured and sold liquid bluing in Boston on his own account. The package used by defendant, which the plaintiff sought to restrain, consists of a bottle of the same size and. [Ibape as that used by plaintiff, with a bright metallic top of the same character. The labels on the bottles used by defendant are octagonal in shape, and are red, with the words "Hubbard's Concentrated Chinese Blue. Hubbard & Co., BOf;ton," in white letters. Some of the labels used by him had a blue ground. So far as regards the labels themselves, there was no similarity between the plaintiff's and defendant's packages. Some of the bottles