ADAMS,,,.'XEYSTONE MANUF'G CO.
has established 11 rule, which is, in effect; a law prohibiting the' commission of adultery by an Indian on the Umatilla reservation, and providing for the arrest, trial, and punishment of any Indian guilty of a violation of the same. Minnie was commitood for a violation of this law, and was therefore commited for a crime against the law-maker,-the Uniood states. , /Tbepla.ce or ,manner other commitment is immaterial. She have been comm'itted to the custody of the police officer, ifthought neeessary or convenient, or any house or inclosure provided for the purpose. Nor need the process have been in writing. From this Indian court and police; in this, their first effort in the administration of justice, written' pl"ocess and proceedings dauld nbt have been expected. The old Knickerbocker, Wouter van Twiller, when exercising tlie of·' fice of magistrate, paid no heed to parchment, ,but delivered to thecon-: stable,as the symbol of his authority, his well-known jack-knife and tobacco box, armed with which' the of New Amsterdam might safely "comprehend all vagi-om men." ' But, pleasantry aside, and in conclusion, the act with which defendants are charged is in flagrant opposition to the authority of the United States on this reservation, and directly subversive of this laudable effort to accustom and educate these Indians iuthe habit andknowledge of self-go\'ernment. It is therefore appropriate and needful that the power and name of the government of the United States should be invoked to restrain and punish them. The' case falls within the letter ofthe statute (section 5401, Rev. St.) providing for the punishment of persons who are guilty of rescuing anyone committed for an offense against the United States, and I see no reason why it Should be construed out of it;, or the statute held inapplicable to it. The demurrer is overruled.
ADAMS tI. KEYSTONE MANUF'G
Co. et al.
«(MettU Oourt, No D. ilZinois. June 80,1888.
PATENTS 1I'OB INvENTIONS-ANTICIPATION-CORN-SHELLER8.
Letters patent No. 182.128, granted October 15,1872, to Henry A. Adams, for an improvement in corn-shellers. consisting of a winged shaft at the throat of the corn-sheller, revolving in the direction in which the corn is running, so as to drive the ears of corn. as they are delivered at the throat by the carrier or elevator. into the shelling devices of the machine, are not void for the want of novelty. no device having been brought to the attention of the court anticipating them. though the patent issued to Augustus Adams, May 15. 1866. for a corD sheller, shows a winged shaft in close proximity to the throat of the machine. revolving in a contrary direction to that of the ,device in the above patent. The above letters patent are not confined in their application to machines. and are infringed by a shaft thickly set with spikes or projections revolving over the throat of a low-feed machine, as the patent states that "it is evident that the form or shape of the beaters or. projections upon the revolving shaft may be varied in many ways, and the reilult accomplished...
In Equity. Bill for an injunction and accounting for infringement of letters Coburn &- Thacher, for complainant. JohnG. Manahan, for defendant$. BLODGETT, oJ. The defendants in this case are charged with the infringement of patent No. 132,128"granted October 15, 1872, to Henry A. Adams for" an improvement in corn-shellers," an injunction and accounting for damages being prayed. The improvement covered by this invention is in placing a winged shaft at the throat of the corn-sheller, revolving in the direction in which the corn is running, so as to drive the ears of corn, as they are delivered at the throat by the carrier or elevator, into the shelling devices of the machine; and infringement is charged of the first claim of the patent, which is: "(1) The combination With a corn-sheller of a series of wings. wheels, or prOjections, so on a shan as to revolve in the same whicl:\ the corn is running, and so placed relative to the throats. as to force into tb\,! machine all misplaced or hesitating ears, substantially as' specified." .. The defenses interposed are: (1) That the patent is void for want of novelty; and (2) that the !lefendants do not infringe. This patent was before the court in the Case of the same complainant against the Joliet Manufacturing Company, reported in 3 Ban. &A. 1, and in that easel the patent was construed, and a large number of anticipatory devices bearing upon the question of novelty were considered. In this case the have brought to the attention of the court a large number of anticipatory devices in addition to those considered in the fonner case; but I do not find in any of the new citations any machine or device which is applicable to corn-shelleI;s, straw or threshing-machines, cider-mills, or any other mechanical devices which seem, in my estimation, to anticipate the complainant's patent. As appears upon the face of this patent, and as was shown in thef,?rmer case, this patent purports to be an improvement upon the machine covered by the letters patent issued to Adams, on May 15, 1866, for a corn-sheller, where a winged shaft was shown revolving in close pl'oxi'mityto the throat of the machine, for the purpose of aiding the feed, but it revolved in a contrary direction to that of the device covered by this' patent; so that this patentee, in effect, did nothing but to change the direction ,in which the winged'shaftshould revolve from what was shown in the older patent to Augustus Adams. But the court was .then oftha opinion, and still is, that the change was a substantial and meritorious one, and one which was well worthy of a patent, by reason of the improvement which it produced in the operative effect of the corn-sheller. These views leave nothing further to be considered in this case but the question of infringement. Defendants manufacture a corn-shener known to the trade and in the market as the "Keystone Power Sheller," which, i.t is claimed on the part of the defendants, was made under certain patents granted to Harvey Packer,-six of which offered in evidence. The fact that defendants are uIallufacturin,g their machines under patents is, of course, no defense
ADAMS· V. KEYSTONE :MANUF'G CO.
in this case, if they infringe the prior patent of the complainant. In the Augustus Adams machine, and, in fact, as will be seen ·from the proof; in all power corn-shellers made at the time of his patent, and the issue of the complainant's patent, the ears of corn fed to the machine were delivered into a spout or chute at SOme distance above the throat, so that the corn was expected to slide or run down this steep chute or'slide into the throat of the machine, where it entered the shelling devices; whilein: the defendants' machine,-and most of the power machines now manufactured, probably, including that made by the Sandwich Company, who operate under the Augustus Adams patent,-what is termed a "low feed'r is adopted where the corn is delivered from the carrier directly to the throat of the machine; and it is urged on the part of the defendants that this feed of the defendants' machine distinguishes it from the machine to which the complamant's patent was specially applicable. But I do not see that the manner in which the corn is brought to the throat of the machine has any special bearing upon the functions or office of the complainant's patent. It seems to me it is as applicable to a machine where the corn is brought directly to the shelling devices by carders as where it is dropped into a chute, and brougbt to the shelling devices partly by gravity. Indeed, it would seem that some forcing device by which the ears of corn can be driven from the carrier into the throat of the machine is an absolute necessity in all these low-feed machines, in. cluding the Sandwich machine, as now constructed, and tbe defendants' machine; and I see nothing in the specifications or description of the complainant's patent which limits its use or application to a high-feed machine, instead of a low-feed, and, as has already been said, I gather from the testimony in this case, and from the arguments of counsel, that some forcing deVice is an absolute necessity in all the lowfeed machines, where gravity is not relied upon to aid in conducting the ears of corn into the shelling devices. The complainant's patent shows what he calls "wings" or "beaters" upon the revolving shaft, which are expected to drive the hesitating or misplaced ears into the shelling device; but he also states, "it is evident that the form or shape of the beaters or projections upon the revolving sbaft may be varied in many ways, and the result accomplished." The defendants' machine shows a irig shaft immediately over the throat or entrance to the shelling devices, set somewhat thickly with spikes or projections, the operation of which is to direct and force the ears of corn into the shelling devices. The decounsel, in his brief and argument, calls the defendants' device a "cramming" feed; and I doubt not that a low-feed machine like the defendants' requires the action of this revolving shaft, armed with wings or projections, to force the ears of corn into the shelling devices, even more than the machines which were in use at the time complainant's patent was issued; but, as I have alread said, I do not think the use of the complainant's patent is limited to the high-feed machines, but that it is in aU respects as applicable to low-feed machines like the defend· ants'. 'When used in connection with a low-feed machine, it is probable that the structure may require some modifications, as is suggested
in the quotation I have just given from the complainant's specification; but it seems to me, under his specifications and first claim , that the complainant is .not confined to broad wings or beaters, such as are shown in the drawings of the patent, but may use any projections or disks which, when placed at or near the entrance to the shelling deviees, will force the ears (')f corn into those shelling devices, so they may be operated upon. Being, therefore, of opinion that the defendants' spiked shaft at the entrance to the throat of his machine, revolving in the direction in which corn is running, is substantially the same device covered by the complainant's patent, or such a one as the complainant has a right to construct under his specifications and claims, I must find that the defendants have infringed as charged, and give a decree for an injunction and' accounting.
WIGHT FIRE-PROOFING Co.
CHICAGO FIRE-PROOF Co.
(Oircuit Court, No D. Itlinoi8. June 80, 1888.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-ANTICIPATION-FIRE-PROOll' COLUMNS.
Patent No. 154,852, issued September 8, 1874, to William H. Drake and Peter B. Wight; for fire-proof columns, consisted of an iron pillar with radial webs of iron issuing from it, the spaces between being filled with closely fitting gores of wood or other suitable material, extending beyond the webs, the outer line of the gore having such shape as was necessary to give the column the exterior form desired, the spaces between the gores to be filled with concrete or other fire-proof material, The inventor generally substituted fire-clay bricks, suitably moulded, for the wooden gores, filling the interstices with plastic fire-clay. An English patent to one Hogg, in 1872, was for a plan for fire-proofing columns and other portions of buildin.ll's by surrounding them with fire-clay or other fire-proof material, filling the interstices with plastic tire-clay or something analogous, this being adapted to a column made in any shape. The object of both inventors was to exclude heat from the iron, and that of Drake and Wight was alsoto prevent water used in case of fire from coming in contact with the columns and injuring them. Hela, that the Hogg invention anticipated that of Drake snd Wight.
Letters patent Nos. 191,662, June 5, 1877, and 191,887, January 29, 1878, were for improvements in said fire-;rroof columns. The improvement in the first named, consisted in "buttons screwing to the webs projecting so as to hold the gores to their places, the recess between the ends of the webs and the gores being dovetailed in shape to hold the concrete or other fire-proof msterial, discarding the batten used in the first patent to hold the gores. ];n the second patent, a flange was cast on the ends of projecting wing'S to the columns, the gores thus being held in place, having the same beveled or dovetailed recess as before, and to be filled with like material, the gores being grooved. Defendants' column, having no dovetailed recess between the gores and ends of the webs, nor the grooved gore. does not infringe either patent.
In Equity., Bill for injunction against infringement of patents. G. L. Chapin, for complainant. ) E. S. Ohesbrough, for defendants.