,TIlE BESSIE WHITIKG,
calls his wife and two other witnesses, who swear that they saw the model about this time. From the appearance of the model it is not certain (whethedt may not ha.ve beell'somewhat changed since it was first constructed.' Ferrin, the first witness for defendant on this point, says, ht> cannot remember the exact location of the pin relatively to the head ic the model he saw, because at the time he did not !,xamine the pin. Mrs. Wheeler, the second witness, says that as near as she can remember the model produced in evidence was the same model she saw in defendant's house. On the other hand, the plaintiff calls as a witness James B. Thurston, the defendant's solicitor, who testifies in substance that in June, 1885, the defendant employed him to procure a patent for a car coupling, and that he produced at the time a crude wooden model. In this model the pivot which connected the hook to the drawbar was not below the line of draw. Application was made for this patent, but he does not think it was granted. Subsequently Th urston made another application for the defendantfor asecond patent,-No. 327,066, -which. embodies the infringing device now made by defendant. At this time the defendant did not produce any wooden model such as he now exhibits. Upon thiscol1dition of the evidence I am satisfied that the defendant has not made a case of prior invention with that certainty which the law requires to invalidate a patent. But if we should assume . the existence of this model as early as 1881, it seems to me that all the circumstances go to show that it was a case of an abandoned experiment. Upon the whole, I think the complainant is entitled to a decree. Decree for complainant.
WILSON f1.THE BESSIE WHITING.
(District Cou';t. E. D.
York. April 25. 1888.)
B.uVACUll-'-'FnoH FIBE ...... 8PEEDINESS OIl' S:mitvtcE-(:JOHPA1USON WITUOTHlllB
, til' oillworka in thevi(Jiility. :The mate of the schooner allplied for assist·
: .Th(l schoon(lr W. was )ying at a wharf in Williamsburgh when l1re broke out ance to.a·tug, which went l1ratto the aid of the schooner J .. lying near by. and afterwards returned and took the W. into the stream. This court here· tofore awarded the tug $200 for her services to the J. 30 Fed. Rep. 204. The value of the W. was less than that of the J. The latter had a cargo of oil on board, which increased her peril. The t.ime devoted by the tug tl? the W. was scarcely one-fourth as much as that given to the J .· and the servICe was reno dered less speedily in this case, and after the danger had somewhat decreased. Held, that $25 was a proper award for the service rendered the W.
In Admiralty. Alexander « Ash, for libelant.
Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.
Wing, Shoudy <t Putnam, for claimants.
BENEDICT, J. This is an action to recover salvage compensation for services rendered the schooner Bessie Whiting. on the 21st day of December,1884. On the mornin!!: of that day a serious fire broke out at Pratt's Oil-Work!,!, Williamsburgh, in which several oil-tanks exploded, and burning oil was scattered over the adjacent waters. At this time the schooner Bessie Whiting lay fast to the south side of the pier at the foot of North Eleventh street. She was in charge of her mate, and the lines by which she was fast to the pier were stiff and frozen. The fire involved danger to the shipping in that locality, and all vessels in the neighborhood set signals for assistance to get into the stream. The steam-tug John H. Wilson, Jr., owned by the libelant, was applied to by the mate of the schooner Bessie Whiting, to tow the schooner away from the pier. The tug went first to the assistance of the Jeanie, then fast to the opposite pier. After towing the Jeanie to a place of safety, the tug returned to the Bessie Whitil;lg, and at the request of the mate two of the tug's crew .went on board and cast off her lines from the pier, for which service the mate agreed to give the men five dollars each. Tho tug took her out into thestl'eam,and left her at anchor.. The service involved no risk to the ,tu!!:, no extraordinary exertion, and occupied but a short time. For the services rendered by this tug to theJennie on the occasion in question this court gave $200 asa salvage compensation, (30 Fed. Rep. 204,) and .the libelant here insists thatthe like sum would be proper compensation for the services rendered to the Bessie Whiting. .The claimant, on the other hand, considers that $25 would be enough. The difference between this case and the case of the Jeanie is considerable. The value of the property saved in Clis case was less than in the case of the Jeanie. The Jeanie had a cargo of oil ()n board, which increased her peril. The time devoted to the Bessie Wh'itingwas scarcely one-fourth as much as that devoted to the Jeanie·.. The service rendered to the Jeanie was rendered promptly. The rendered to the Bessie Whiting was not so promptly rendered, the ;tug having thought wise to relieve the Jeanie before going to the :Bessie Whiting. When she returned to the Bessie Whiting danger from the fire had decreased, still the situation was such as to justify the mate in desiring to be towed out. I think :.25 wi)l be a' proper compensation to be paid for the services in the libel ,mentioned. Let the libeianthave a decree for $25 and costs.