STEWART 'V. TENK.
with respect. to it.
His choice of an adviser was rather unfortunate; that a man should go to a ,boon companion in a drinking-saloon, a bar-room loafer, to ask what the law
" And he [Hayes] went and took counsel of. '" '" '"
is on a 13ubjectof that Counsel truly say that there is nothing. in the record which perhaps justifies such an exaggerated characterization of this witness; and yet that defendant and witness met where they were drinking together is discl9Sed by the record, and it may well be that the appear/Lnce of the witness on .the stand fully disclosed his character as a mere bar-room loafer. There is certainly nothing inthe record. to contradict it. Again, it appears in the testimony that some of the witnesses testified to dMendaht's previous good'character, and upon this the court chargedin these words: "And if you believe him guilty. let not the fact that bankers and business men have testified that he is a man of integrity, by which they mean, probably, that he pays his debts, influence your verdict, or discourage you in the discharge of your duty." That is unquestioI:lably correct as a matter of law; if the jury believe the defendant guilty, no previous good character, however proved, would be any excuse for acquitting him. And if it be said that there is a covert fling at the witnesses' criterion of a man's integrity and character, that does not change the correctness of the rule onaw laid down. These are the only special matters of the charge presented. I have mentioned them in order that my silence might not carry an implication that, though not properly cognizable on a proceeding in error, they constituted an improper attempt to influence the verdict of the jury.. I think, reading the charge as a whole, any one would feel that all that the court did in his comments upon matters of fact was to endeavor to impress upon the jury the seriousness of the offem.e charged, and to prevent them from being misled as to their duty by matters extrinsic to the question of guilt. There being no error apparent in the record, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed·. The statute gives to this court the power of modifying the sentence imposed. As the jury recommended to mercy, I see no reason to doubt the propriety of the sentence, and the saine sentence will be imposed here as in the district court.
and another v.
«(Jircuit Uourt, 8. D. lUinoi8. November 8,1887.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-IssUE OF LETTERs-JOINT INVENTION.
Where the evidence showed that patent No. 140,315, June 24, 1873, of an apple paring and coring machine was issued to two patentees jointly, but that the whole machine was made up of about 12 different claims for a patent, and that one of these was invented by one of the patentees alone, a joint patent on such claim and part of the machine is invalid..
,,J:1h'n, R·. .$ennett, for defendants;
A.Anderson. for complainants.
usefuliiuprovements in machines for paring, slicing, coring, and divid.; ing apples, and other The invention consists"Q'trst, iri providing' the said device with a paring-knife, so operated a.s ,to. removtf the skin of the fruit from all parts thereof outside of the parts operated upon by the coring-kilife;: second, in conjunction with said paring-knife, proViding a convex anti.;friction roller, to prevent any upon the device by,the fruit, when being operated upon,; third,in providing the arm upon which said paring-knife is mounted, with the segment of a cogged guide or llattenedsphere, so formed as to enable the said paring-knife to operate upon a describing one';lIa1£ of the periphery of the vertical central plane of an apple; in providing said segmental cog with a yielding ratchet to assist the 'rotation of the ,cog and the preservation of an even of the paring-knife upon the fruit; fifth, in providing said device with a codng-knife, Which is so arranged that its cutting edge comes in contact with parts oi the fru}t abqut the core with a draw-cut; sixth, in profork for securely holding the fruit." viding said device with a , The twelve claims in the ,patent are for the machine as a combirjatiqn t and for separate and distinot portions of it as separate and distinct inventions. The b::ll charges infringement. of the .Lanth claim only which reads as: follows: "The combination of the arched coring-knife, I, and as shown and described." It is insisted by the ,defendants' counsel that Stewart alone invented thear<:hed coringand'slicing-knifejand that, therefore, a joint patent for this distinct invention ,was unauthorized. Stewart testified that he conceived the idea of combining the slicing and arched coring-knife as it is described in the patent; and that he gave instructions to Campbell how to make the knife. He further testified that certain other parts of the combination, which are covered by separai;e claims in the patent, were invented by him; while other parts we.re invented by Campbell. Campbell was also examined as a witness, but his testifl10ny on these points did not differ materially from Stewart's. Stewart and Campbell were entitled to a joint for what, they jointly invented. It may be that their minds co-operated in combining the different parts which resulted in the production of the complete machine, but a joint patent can be sustained only for a joint inventioll; and the evidence shows that Campbell did n.ot contribute to the invention covered by the tenth claim. Stewart was the sole inventor of the slicing and coring,knife, and the patent for that, as a separate and distinct part of the machine, should ,have bl;len issued to him alone. Worden v. Fed. Rep. 505; Bunging App. Co. v. Woerle, 29 Fed. Rep. 450. The. dismissed for want
No. 1;40;315, on June 24, 1873, for ajoint invention for certain new and
J.. John Stewart and,Will Campbell obtained letters patent
l'FANSCHMliDT V.KELLYMERCANTILE CO.
and, , others, Copartners, ,
(CirettkCourt, D.Minn68oUJ,. November 15, 1887.}
A patent of a WMh·board known as the" George" patent, numbered187,S42, and issued Febi'UllfY 27, 1877, consisted (>f a rrame of the usual shape for wash·boards and made with a rubbing surface constructed ,of a single heavy sheet of zinc with the lower edge wrapped tube,shape, about a supporting rod. Held, to possess no patentable novelty over the "Heflth Wash-Board" patent No. 168,252. issued September 28, 1875, which was very nearly like the former, only made with two overlapping zinc plates instead of, one; and as the evidence did not clearly show an invention by Ge9rge "prior to that by Heath, tb,e former's patent is invalid.
Pll.AgJ.'I9E IN CIVIL CASES..,..RlllHEARING-CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE.
PATENTS FOR lNvENTIONS-AN'rICIPATION-WASH-BoARDS.
Amotion to reopen a hearing for the admission of testimony which ia merely cumulative will not be granted. '
Ptackelton &: Carei'll.8,. for complafnants. TV. H. Burridge and. Warner &:Lay;renc6, for defendant.
NELSON J. This suit is brought against the defendant for an infringement of letters patent granted to David 1. George, February 27, 1877, "for improvement in wash-boards." The complainants claim to be interested in the patent and all rights of action that may have accrued. for any infringement of the same. The defendant denies infringement, but relies chiefly upon the defense of want of patentable novelty in the George wash-board. A vast amount of testimony is taken. After the hearing, a motion is made by defendant to open the case and 'allow the deposition of several witnesses to be taken for the purpose of giving additional evidence that awash-board, invented by Heath, to whom letters patent had been issued, was prior in time to theinventioll of George, and furnished all the information necessary to a skillful mechanic to construct the George wash-board. The complainants have offered testimony tending to show that the a.ctual invention by George was older than Heath's; which evidence has been met by the defendant, so that, if the motion is granted, the additionaltestimony would be merely cumulative. While it might be more positive in terms upon the fact sought to be established, the case, on that aecount, should not be opened. I deny the motion and shall decide the controversy upon the testimony already taken. I shall only consider the defense of want of novelty. If the Heath patent, issued September 28, 1875, is older than the George invell:tion, in my opinion the suit must fail. The George patent contains a single claim, viz.: .. In a wash-board, the corrugated metallic plate, B, formed of a single piece of sheet-metal. and provided at its lower end with a tubular enlargement,substantially as specified." The patentee claims a corrugated metal sheet with a tubular enlarge. ment made by bending and soldering the free edge at one end to the. body he says: ' of the sheet. In his