thesearlic1as,d;r any of them or all of them, are or are n6t within the definition of the word "jewelry" as you find it in the trade· . The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs for $200.20 principal, $44.11 in. terest froD;l; the date of es,ch payment; total, $244.31.
KIDD '11. HORRY.
Uo'Urt, E. J). .Pennsylvania. January 16, 1888.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-GAS APPARATUS.
The essential parts (so far as here involved) of the device in letters patent No. 247, 925, for an "apparatus for enriching gas," or heater, are a chamber provided with a.series of corrugations, and a disk or partition for causing a circulation Of gas through the chamber, dividing it into currents, the only means, as was supposed, of thoroughly heating the gas, and feeding the hydro-carbon sufficiently. Held, not infringed by a device for heating, where the gas is confined in the pipe,.in its ordinary form, and is heated by surrounding this pipa'with a 100se-1;itting tube, or cover, into which heat from the illuminating burner is collected, and thus thrown upon the pipe; the column ()fgl\$ not being divided into currents, and not heated throughout, the fact that the heat is sufficient to fuse the hydro-carbon being unimportant, since the supposed necessity of heating the gas thoroughly,and the device for regulating the heat, are obviated by the deVice. In this case, although the drawings flIed show another form of heater, as well as the one for which letters patent issued, as there is no ambiguity, and nothing left for construction, the drawings of the patent should not be referred to in construing its claims.
SAME-INVENTION-DBTA.CHING PART OF DEVICE.
A patent issued fora device to render. detachable a part of a machine, by SUbstituting a screw for the original fastening, will not be sustained. On bill'for injunction.
Francia Rawle and A. Q.' Keasby, for complainants. E. Olinton Rhoada andF. Garroll Brew8ter, for respondent.
PER CuRIAM. The bill charges infringement of letters patent No. 247,· 925, for "apparatus for enriching gas," dated October 4, 1881; and of No. 333,862, for "carbureting attachment for gas-fixtures;" dated January 5, 1886, issued to Joshua Kidd; . The first of these letters is. for an hnprovement on the invention of Livezey and Kidd, patented a year earlier. This is so stated in the specifications in the following terms: "My invention relates to improvements inthe invention for which letters patent No"227,549 were issued jointly to myself and James Livezey, for apparatus tQenrich gas, by mingling with it the heated vapor of hydro-carbon naphthaline, or other hydro-carbon." The general features of Livezey and Kidd's apparatus were a gas-fixturehaving'a6al'buretingvessel (of spherical or other convenient form) attached at the bottom, with gas-burners arranged under each, to heat it.
KIDD V. HORRY·.
The illuminating burners were placed over this vessel, and immediately above them was an enlargement or outward projection of the gas-pipe, which extended over these burners, to receive their heat and communicate it to the descending column of gas. In operation the burners underneath the carbureting vessel fused the hydro-carbon, and thus raised a vapor, through which the gas was conducted; it then passed up to the illuminating burners, whose flames heated the projection in the pipe, and, consequently, the gas flowing down. The object of communicating heat to the gas was not to fuse the hydro-carbon, but to assist in presenting it to the burners· in the most favorable condition for illuminating purposes; The complainant's improvement (as far as here involved) on this apparatus of Livezey and Kidd, consists in the peculiar character of heater which he placed above the illuminating burners, whereby the descending column of gas is separated into thin currents, and thoroughly heated throughout, to fuse the hydro-carbon, and dispense with the Durners underneath. He describes the device as follows: C, C, indicate a set of ordinary burners that are employed for illuminating and heating purposes; and to the main gas-pipe through which the supply of illuminating .gas is derived. The gas from the pipe passes over an extended heating. surface before passing to the carbureting vessels, and, as a means of prOViding such extended heating surface, I arrange above the burners a heater, E, consIsting of a metal shell, that can be composed of two disks, e, e, each having II central opening, F, formed through the same, and each being provided upon its lIiDer f·ace with a number.of corrugations that form passages, so ranged that the gas will flow through the same, in order tobe thoroughly heated. As shown in Figs. 1 and 2, the opening through the heater, which is formed by these openings, F, in the disks or halves of the heater, is divided into two parts by a t1>in metal plate, or disk. F, that also lies between the two halves of the shell in order that the gas will flow from pipe, D, through opening, F, in the upper portion of the heater; thence out to and around the perIphery of portion, F, and back through the passages in the lower portion of the heater to thepipe,H. It will be observed that the intermediate metal partition plate does no.t close the outer channel adjacent to the meeting rims of the halves of the shell, so that the cnrrents of gas from pipe, A, will impinge upon and be split by the partition plate into divided currents flOWing outward through the corrugatiolls of the upper half, passing around the periphery of the partition, and then back through the corrugations of the lower half to the gas-pipes, H. that connects with the heater, and establishes portion of a pipe connection between the heater and the carbureting vessel. The second claim (to which the charge of infringement is confined) is for this heater, and reads asfollows: "The. combination with the pipes, D, H, of the gas-heating chamber, E, arr;tnged above the burners, and provided with a series of channels or corrugations, and a disk or partition,FI, for causing a circulation of gas through the heater, substantially as described." This language is plain; nothing whateveris left for construction. The claim is for the combination of the several parts of the peculiar heater described. Of course it covers equivalents, but to say that a heater which does not combine the essential elements of this device is an equivalent, simply because it communicates sufficient heat to fuse the
carbon, is Ii mistake. The essential parts of the device;are'the "chamber provided with a series of corrugations, and a disk or partition for causing a circulation of gas through" the chamber; The complainant believed it necessary (at the date of his invention) to heat the gas throughout and thoroughly, to fuse the hydro-carbon sufficiently; and it was only by dividing the column hlto'thin currents that this could be accomplished. The communication of heat to its surface would leave the center cold-as gas is a non-conduetor.He therefore devised the, heater described. The drawing filed, it is true, shows another form ofheatar, as well as this, in which the peculiar features above described are omitted; and it is referred to in the specifications. It is also true that the drawings of a patent may be appealed to in construing its claims, if the language is ambiguous, and leaves something for constro.ction. But here, as we have seen, nothing is left for construction. ,Theinconsistency of the drawing with the claim is, doubtless, attributa:ble to the fact that the complainant made II; broader claim at the outset., He supposes himself entitled to tAe credit of inventing a method for fusing the hydro-carbon by heat: from the illuminating burners, and,: made his drawing cOl'lsistent with this view. The department,however, pared his claim d6wn to the specific ahd narrow limits in which it was allowed. ,While' he disclaimed his original pretensions, ih accepting this, the drawing ,was, no dopbt, allowed to remain as"originlllly filed. n is qulte clear thatif the'c).aiJ;u were broad,er woU;\d conflict with the letters previously gl'antedto,Livezey and Kidd, to which, as we have seen, the patent is expressly stibordinated by the specifications,if not with other prior inventiol1s, and thus be rendered void through anticipation.Whether or not Kidd and'Livezey's the illuminating burners) would Gommunicate$u$.cient heat to fuse, the hydro-carbon is unimportant. If not, it i$ clear that no morevvas required than simple enlargement to make it,doso. What has been said virtually disposes of the complaint founded on the first patent in suit. The respondent's heater has not the pecuIiarand essential parts of the complainant's. provided with 'a,'stirface'ofchannelsal'ld corrugll-tions, and .adisk partiti?n for causjng ()iroulation of gas throug4 the heater," are not in it. The is confined to.the pipe, in itsordina,ry form, and is heated by surrounding this with a loose-fitting tube, or cover, into which heat fr!'>m the illuminating burners,is collected, and thus thrown upon the pipe. Tbisheater will not do what the does,-:-clivide the column ofgas into separate currents and heat it throughout. It heats <>nly the surface, That this is sufficient to·fuse the hydrO"'carbon is not important; The complainant, at the date of his invention, as we have seen,believedsllch 'heating to be insufficient, and, therefore provided a device to heat the gas throughout. He afterwards found, however, that at times the heat thus 'created was too great, and· that a regulating device (which he 'attached) was necessary to control it. The respondent's heater avoids this necessity, and dispenses with ,the device. It is thus seen that the heaters are not the same, either:ingeneralcharacter or effect.:
THE MAIDEN CITY.
As respects the charge of infringing letters No. 333.862, ·it is sufficient to say that we cannot sustain the patent. It is for rendering the carbureting vessel detachable, virtually for removing the solder which constituted the original fastening and substituting a screw. That is the whoJe of it. The opening originally left for inserting a pipe would, of couree, answer as a feeding place when the vessel was detached; and, with this opening, of course another in the side would be superfluous. Surely when the convenience of filling the attached vessel was realized, any ordinary mechanic would have suggested the means of making it detachable. The question of infringement here need not be considered. The bill must be dismissed, with costs.
THE MAIDEN CITY. GASTOVER ..,. THE MAIDEN
(.Di8friot Oourt,8. D. Alabama. July 80. 1887.)
SHIPPING-eHARTER-PARTY-EXCE88 OF FREIGHT.
Plaintiff chartered a vessel for a lump sum. The master of the ve8sel made a subcharter-party. the freight earned on which exceeded the lump sum remaining due on the original charter-party. Held, that the master was not justified in refusing to pay over such excess to plaintiff by t):le existence of a' separllte contract between plaintiff and a third party as to the disposition to be made of such excess.
2. SAMEI-CHARTER-PARTy-RIGHT TO EXCESS OF FREIGHT-'REMEDY AGAINST SHIP. ..
If a vSllsel is chartered, and the master is agent of the OWners, itis his duty to collect freight for the charterer, and the ship will.be liable for a refusal to pay over on his part unless the master is made the charterer's agent by vir· tue of some express authority conferred on him by the charter to act as hi.
In Admiralty. Libel for excess of freight earned. January 7; 1884, A. Berryman, as the master and agent of the bark Maiden City,of St. John, New Brunswick, then at Newport News, Virginia, chartered that vessel to A. Gastover to take a cargo of cotton froin Norfolk, Virginia, to Barcelona, thence to proceed in ballast to Trapani, Sicily, and there take on a cargo of 1,300 tons of salt and carry the same to Boston or .Gloucester, Massachusetts. The lump sum to be paid was £1,800-£1,200 at Barcelona, and the balance on delivery of the salt. On the same day the master made a subcharter-party with Richard Gurney, under which the vessel was to proceed from Barcelona to Trapani, and thence take on salt as above. At Barcelona the amount stipulated was paid, and the freight on the salt realized £747, 10s.-about &713.90 more than was, under the lump-sum charter-party, to be paid on the full completion of the voyage. ThlS amount the master refused to pay over, and.Jor it Gastover libels the vessel in Mobile. The master inter-