lJNIl'ED STATES tI. MASON.
UNITED STATES tI. MASON.
(C'irlJuit Oourt, No D. OalijO'fflia. MarchlS, 1888.)
Information for Desertion against a seaman. Goo. W. Towle, for plaintiff. H. W. Hutton, for defendant.
SAWYER, J. This is an information for desertion, a.gainst a party who shipped as a seaman on the steam-ship Queen of the Pacific, for a voyage from San Francisco to San Diego, in the state of California, and reo turn. It is framed under section 51 of the shipping commissioners' act of June 7, 1872, (17 St. 262), carried into the Revised Statutes in section 4596. No other provision of the statute has been called to my attention, and I am not aware of any, making the acts charged an offense. The act of June 9, 1874, provides that "none of the provisions of an act entitled 'An act to authorize the appointment of shipping commissioners by the several courts of the United States to superintend the shipping and discharge of seamen engaged in the merchant ships belonging to the United' States, and for the further protection of seamen,' shall apply to sail or steam vessels engaged in the coastwise trade, except the coastwise trade between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, or in the lakegoing trade, touching at foreign ports. or otherwise, or in the trade between the United States and British North American possessions, or in any case where the by custom. or agreement entitled to participate in the profits or result of a cruise or voyage." 18 St. 64. This vessel, going on a voyage from San Francisco to San Diego, in the state of California, is not one of the vessels excepted. The language of nonapplication is the broadest possible. It is "none of the provisions" of the shipping commissioners' act shall apply to this vessel or voyage, and the provision under which the offense is charged is one of the provisions of that act, and beyond all question within the provision of the last act quoted. It in effect clearly repeals the prior act with reference to the ship and voyage in question. The only other possible question is, whether the adoption of tbe Revised Statutes, with the provisions of the shipping commissioners' act incorporated in them, on June 22d, a few days after the passage of the v.34F.no.2-9
said act of June 9, 1874, repealed the latter; and the Revised Statutes expressly answer this qUllStiollin, the negative. Section 5601, Rev. St., is in the following language: "The enactment of theaaid revision is not to affect or tepeal any act of congress passed since the 1st day of December, one thousand eight hundred and all that date are to have full effect as, and if passed"a#er the enactment ()fthisrevlsion; and so far as, such acts vary ill fOrm, or, conflict with any provision contained in said revision, are to have effect: as subsequent statutes, and as repealing any portion of the revision in. . coDsistenttherewith. " There can be but one possible put upon this provision. and; ,that is, that whate:ver there is in the revision taken from the shipping commissioners' act,that is inconfiict with the'said aot of June 9, 1874, is repealed. The Revised Statutes are made to take ·effect from December 31, 1883, and as if passed on that day, "and all other acts passed after that date, altho.ugh inJact passed. before the .Revised Statutes, are to be treated and enforced as subsequent statutes,' repealing, t4e.Revised Statutes, so far as they are inconsistent therewith. 'i In fe Publishing <:;:>., 3 Sawy. 616, 617. I so held, immediately after the passage of the act of in the case of ,a Sea1nltU wiba was convicted a most atroand brutal assault .and battery upo,n the of a coasting vessel, underthEl sixth clause, of section St. After conviction, and beforefi\entence, the statllte of June came,to hand,and I was oblige<;i judgmeht on the ground that the provision had ceased to. betwplicable, to that, of coasting vessels before the of the off'ens,e. Other courts, so. far as I am aware, haveumformly taken the SllIQe of the statute. .0. S.v. Bain, 5 Fed. Rep. 192; U. S. v. E,ep.141; Burdett v. Williams, 27 Fed. Rep. 117; U. BUA;kley.3J: Fed. Rep. 805;U. S. v. 'J!lte Grace Lothrop, 95 U. S. 532. . For given, act charge<i does not constitute an offense under. the statutes of the United States, and the information must be quashed, and ,it is so ordered,.
tI. MONARC:H: PARLOR SLEEPING CAR
Co. ' ·
(Oircuit Oourt; S.D. NeuJYork.:March 7, 1888.)
1.'PATENT8 FOR INVENTIONs-NOVELTy-8LEEPING CARS-SIGNAL ,ApPARATUS.,
Theileventh clahn of llltters patent No. 122,622, issued January 9, 1872,to William D Mann, for an improvement in compartment railway cars, ing an. arrangement of wire signal bells or apparatus to extend from each compartment to the porter's room, in view of the fact that such signals,were in ,common u.se in hotels, on stear,n.-boats, and e]sewl!.ere prior to the grallt.Qf . tI::e letters patent, is void for want of novelty, as the mere change of location is not patentable. . " , ,
Patent No. 327,289, granted September 29,1885, to William D. Mann. for an iciproved llystem and apparatus for ventilatin'g railway ears, providing the car