In re KAYs, Sheriff.
(Di8triot Court, B.D. Oalifornia. May 28. 1888 )
JAILS AND JAILERS-SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES PRISONERS.
i;Q the county jail any prisoner committed by authority of the United States,
By Penal Code Cal. §§ 1601, 1602, the sheriff is required to receive and koep
for the support of state prisoners must be presumed to be a reasonable compensation; and for a refusal of the sheriff to receive a United States prisoner," IIPon being tendered such amount, he is liable for contempt.
Held., that the amount per diem fixed by the board of supervisors of tbe county
"provision being made by the United States for the support of such prisoner. "
Oontempt Proceedings against James C. Kays, sheriff of Los An· geles county. George J. Denis, U. S. Atty., and R. B. Oarpenter, for the United States. Stephen M. .White, for respondent. Ross, J. One Gallagher having, for an offense against the laws of the United States, been duly committed to the custody and keeping of the sheriff· of Los Angeles county,-the officer in charge. of the jail of the county,-that officer refused to receive him into his custody unless the government of the United States would pay for the support of the prisoner at the rate of 75 cents per day. The rate fixed by the board the sheriff for the keeping of of supervisors of the county to be prisoners charged with or convicted of offenses against the laws of the state is 35 cents per day and the agreed case shows that for the keeping of Gallagher the sberiff was, on behalf of the United States government, duly tendered a like sum. The real purpose of the present proceeding, as stated by counsel for the respective parties, is to obtain a judicial determination of the rights and obligations of the sheriff in the premises. The question is, I think, of easy solution. By sections 1601 and 1602 of the Penal Code of California, it is declared: "1601. The sheriff must receive, and keep in the county jau, any prisoner committed thereto by process or order issued nnder the authority of the United States, until he is discharged according to law, as if he had been committed under process ,ssued under the authority of this state; provision being made by the United States for the support of such prisoner. "1602. A sheriff to whose custody a prisoner is committed, as provided in the last section, is .answerable for his safe-keeping, in the courts of the United States, according to the laws thereof." It is thus made the duty of the sheriff to receive, qnd. keep in the county jail, until legally discharged, any prisoner committed thereto by procpss or order issued under the authority of the United States, as if he had been 'committed under process issued under the authority of the state; provision being made by the United States for the support of such prisoner. And the sheriff is made answerable for his safe-keeping, in the courts of the United States, according to the laws thereof. As the sheriff has the custody and control of the prisoner, and is made answerable for his safe-keeping, of course, the provision to be made by the
LOCKE !7. LANE & BODLEY CO.
United States for his support is to be made through the sheriff. And for such support the sheriff is entitled to a just and reasonable compensation, but nothing more. He cann()t himself arbitrarilydetermine what the compensation shall be. If so, an unreasonable or exorbit8:nt rate might be fixed. In the nature of things, it cannot' be worth more to support a prisoner held for a violation of a law of the United States than one held for a violation of a law of the state of California; and as the government of the United States duly tehdered the sheriff the amount fixed by the supervisors of the county as Ii. just compensation for .the keeping and support of state and county prisoners, which it must be presumed is a reasonable compensation therefor, the sheriff was tendered for the support of the prisoner in question all that he was entitled toreceive or demand. It results that he must be adjudged guilty of the contempt charged, but inasmuch as counsel have explflined rhe real purpose of the proceeding to be to obtain an authoritative dewl'luination of the rights and obligations of the sheriff, the judgment is that he pay' a nominal fioe of one dollar.
Oourt, S. D. Ohio
May 2ll, 1888 )
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-COMBINATlONS-... VALVES.
Patent No. 173,653, granted to Joseph !I, Locke, February 15,1876; for improvement in three-way balanced stop-valves for. hydraulic elevators, displays invention, since, though the parts used in the combination are old, the combination itself, which is all that is claimed, is new, and produces '\ new and ul'leful result. . ,
As the Locke patent expressly disclaims graduated valve openings, either broadly or of any specific form, except in combination, and does not claim cup-packing· except in combination, that patent is not invalidated ,by the de. scription of a mine pumping engine designed by M. Junkes, contained in Rankin's Manual of the Steam-Engine and other Prime Movers, (5th Ed., London, 1870,) p. 140 Irl seq., or by the description 'of cup-packing on po:ge"128 of the same The patents to Dunlap, No. 182,526, October 29,1872, for improvement in b,alanced valves, and to No. 148,266. September 80. 1875', fot im,provement in balanced valves for hydraulic cranes, do not anticipate the Locke improvement.
.. SAME':""WHO ENTITLED ro-BURDEN 011' PROOF.
In a suit for infringement of patent, where complainanttestifiell that he devised the improvement patented before he entered defendant's employment, and defendant testifies ,that certain changes in the design were made after such employment, at his suggestion, and were not the sole produc'tion of the complainant, which is denied by complainant, the burden of proof being on defendant. the invention held to be that of complainant.
To P ABTNERSHIP-TRANSII'ER 011' PARTNERSHIP TO CORPO-
SAME - LICENSE RATION.
A contract with a partnership, whereby it was to have the use and benefil of complainant's invention, confers no right thereto upon a corporation sub-