carrier: and any person who shall knowinglydeposft, C311se to be deposited, for mailing or delivery, anything declared by this section to be non-mailable matter, * * * shall be deemed gUilty of a misdemeanor, and shall for 'each and every offense be tined not less than one hundred nor more than five thousand dollars, or imprisonlld at hard labor not less than one year, nor more than ten years, or both, at .the discretion of the court. " Supp. Rev.St. 229. The claim made by the relator that the exhibits do not make out a case in which this court haa jurisdiction, and that the law has not been violated, in my opinion, is irue. To hold otherwise would necessitate a strained construction of· this statute. The purpose of the act was to prevent. the mails from being used to circulate matter to corrupt the morals of the people. The history of this legislati?n clearly I'hows that congress determined to exclude from the mails impure and immodest writings, and that rough and coarse language is not within the terms of the act. It is not the province of courts to extend the statutes so as to embrace cases not plainly and clearly within their terms; and, if there is a fair doubt whether the aet charged is within the purview of the law, the person who committed it is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The supreme court of the United States, in FJx parte Jackson, 96 U. S. 736, say: "In excluding various articles from the mail, the object of congress has not been to interfere 'with * * * the rights of the people, but to refuse its facilities for the distribution of matter deemed injurious to the public morals." And, again: "AU that congress meant by this act was that the mail should not be used to transport such corrupting lications and articles. " The writings deposited in the mail and complained of are not excluded mailable matter, and afford no cause for criJ,ninal proGeedings. The petitioner. is discharged from custody.
(CIrcuit Oourt, No D. New York. August 23, 1887.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-DETACHABLE RADIATOR-STATE OF ART-RESTRICTION OF CLAIM:. .
In a suit for ,infringement of claim 1 of letters patent No. 245,157, granted Messrs. GoodeJlow & Owens. August 2, W81, for an improvement in hot-air furnaces, consisting of "a furnace having a detachable radiator," "substantially as and 'for the. purposes set forth, " the specifications requiring that the radiator be attached by means of a flange, slots, and lugs, which securely lock it in poaltion, and render it detachable by bringing the lugs opposite the slots, helil, in view of the state of the art. and the language of the specifica· tions, that this claim was not infringed by: a furnace having a detachable radiator not s!:lcured by any such means, or equivalents therefor.
In Equity. Bill for an infringement ofclaim 1 patent No. 245,157, granted to Messrs. Goo,denow & Owens, August 2, 1881, for an improvement in
EDWARD BARR CO. V'.
'" N. H. AUfOMATIC SPRINKLER CO.
hot-air furnaces. That claim is as follows: "A furnace havingsecuref,l 'thereto a detachablel'adiator, which is providedwith'oneor more horizontal flues opening from dome fromtbe furnace, *'* * suhstantially as and for the purposes set fOl:th." The specifications. provided that the radiator should be seated in a sand-cup joint, and seto the furnace by means of:;t;. flange, slots, an<}lup;s, which secUirely locked it in position, it being madedetachable·,by bringing the lugs opposite the slots. The alleged infringing furnace consisted, also, of a de.tachable .radill.tor and dome, but. the radiatorwRBnot, secured to; the furnace by lligs and slots, or by any other equivalent means of it against displacement by gas explosion. The defendants claimed that, in view of the state of th,e art, and the language of the specifications, daimlof t11.e letters patent should be limited to the elements used fQr .securing the raq.iator to the fqfDB.ce. and denied the infringement. Ed1fJin,H, .Ri8ley and Ed1!Jard Wetmore, for complll.inants. .... (Walter D. Edmonds, of Q()unsel,) for defendants.
'BLAT<lIiFORD, Justice. .The words of claim t of the Goodenow & Owens .'}ifl.tt:lnf, "a. furnace having seoured thereto a detachable radiator,"· ee sub· -stantially ItS and for the purpose set forth," require, by reference to the deseriptive pa-rtof thespooifioation, that the radiator shall not only be .-detacna:ble',btitshall besooured by the flange, N, the slots, N', and the 'l'Ugs, 0;: which, as. the speciflcation says, securely'lock it in positi6nj it · being madedetaohablES by bringing the lugi:l opp0i:lite to the slots.' · 'state dfthe· art also requireathis interpretation'of the claim. .As· the defendants' furnace contains no i:luch means,· arid 'no equivalent means of ·-seburingthEi radiator in position, there is no infringement, and the bill . · .'" " must be dismissed, with costs.
NEW YORK & SPRINKLER Co.
«(Jircuit Oourt, 8; D. NfM York. August 18. 1887.)
1. FATEioiTS FOR INVENTIONS-RIGHT TO PuLOInU.RY IN"JUNcTION-I'RE:8UMPTION OF' VALI1>ITY. ' ,
To entitle a cQmplainant to a. preliminary injunction, restraining the infringeznent of letters patent, there must be a special presumption in favor of the validity of the patents, arising from an adjudication in a 'federal court, . ll.Cquisscence by the public, or a successful interference in the patent-ofllee.
:2. Sllim:-FIRE-ExTINGUISRER. 307,456, l,il'ovember 4, 1884, and No. 357,987, February 15. 1887. for automatic
,Apreliminary injunction, r.estrainingtbe infringement of letters patent No.
".fire-extinguisher. » denied. as notbing appeared in the motion papers sbowbig sucb a former adjudication. pUblic acquiescence, or successfulinterference in tbe patent-ofllce, between the parties or tbeir privies. '"