etseq:; Crim. Proc. §§ 905,910, and numerOus cases cited in the note to the case of State v. 85 Amer Dec. 485. . Now, lo,)king at the indictment, it is seen that it charges that at a CHtain named time and place, within the jurisdiction of this court, the defendant took an oath in the United States district court-which oath was administered to him in open court by E. H. Owen, the duly-appointed, oualified, and acting clerk of said court, and who was then possessed of competent authority to administer it-thatin the matter then pending in said court entitled" In the Matter of the Contempt of Thomas J. Cuddy," he would tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then and there willfully, falsely, corruptly, and contrary to such oath, did state certain material matter in his testimony then and there adduced, which is specifically set out in the indictment. The materiality of the testimony is sufficiently alleged, and the allegation falsifying the alleged material matter is also sufficient. I see no force in the suggestion that there is no allegation that defendant swore falsely to a material matter which he did not believe to be true. The allegation is that he willfully and corruptly swore to materiaL matter which he knew to be false. He could not believe to be true that which he knew to be false. If there was nothing further in the indictment to show that the matter in which the alleged false swearing was committed, was one of which the court had jurisdiction, than the allegation that the alleged false testimony was given in a matter then pending in the district court, entitled" In the Matter of the Contempt of Thomas J. Cuddy," I would be inclined to think the indictment fatally defective; but the indictment does further aver that the laws of the United States authorized said oath to be administered in said matter. Since all of this, as has been seen, is matter of inducement, and may be stilted generally, and since the court must have jurisdictivn over a mattel' pending therein in which the laws of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered. I am of opinion that the indictment does sufiiciently show that the court had jurisdiction of the matter in which the is alleged to have been committed. Demurrer overruled.
SUN VAPOR STREET LIGHT Co.
CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS.
(Oircuit Court, N. D. Iowa, N. D.
INFltINGEMENT OF FOR
Complainant alleged that it was the owner of certain letters patent for improvements in snpplying- street lamps with oil, and that defendant city, in violation of these patents, was using street lamps with these improvements, and askcd an injllnction and accounting. Defendant in its answer. among other malleI'S, set out an a.!"i'eement with a third party to furnish the lamps. and to light aud extinguish the same. for a fixed sum. Held, that this portion of the answer was pertinent to the issue, and. tjlOl:gh it might not constitute a bar, should be considered in determining the relief to be granted.
Bill to restrain infringement of letters patent.
SUN VAPOR STREET LIGHT CO. fl. CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS.
Charles R. MiUer, for complainant. J. N. Whittam, for defendant.
SHIRAS, J. The bill filed in this cause charges that the complainant corporation is the owner, by assignment, of letters patent No. 222,856, issued to Henry S. Belden for an improvement in the" method and means of supplying street lamps with oil," and of letters patent No. 286,211, issued to AlfiedL. Mack for an improvement ina "resefVoir for burning fluids;" that the defendant corporation, in violation of complainant's rights, and in infringement of said letters patent, has caused to be made, and has in use upon the streets of said city of Cedar Rapids, a number of street lamps which in their construction embrace the improvements secured by said letters patent; that the defendant has been .and is making, by the use of such lamps, large gains and profits, for which an accounting is prayed .. In the answer filed the defendant sets forth that there is in use upon its streets 17.5 gasoline lamps; that these lamps, and the posts upon which the lamps are placed, are owned by the Western Street Light Company; that by a written set forth in full, between said defendant and said Western Street Light Company, the latter agrees to furnish said lam ps and posts, to keep the same in good order, and to light and extinguish the same, for a certain sum per lamp, payable annually by the defendant. To so much of the answer as Rets forth the agreement with the \Vestern Street Light Company complainant excepts, upon the gronnd that the facts thus set forth do not meet Cae charge of infringement.in the bill; that, if the lamps furnished under this written contract do in fact infringe upon the patents owned by complainants, the defendant is a parlicipant in the wrong, and cannot evade responsibility for its acts by showing that the lamps are owned and furnished by another party. Granting this to be true, still it does not follow that the exceptions should be sustained. The bill charges that the defendant has caused to be made, and is using upon its streets, a large number of lamps which infringe upon the patents owned by complainant, and that it is making large profits therefrom, of which discovery is prayed. In response to this demand the answer sets forth the facts touching the agreement with the Western Light Company, the ownership of the posts and lamps, and the price paid for the use thereof. In other words, discovery is made of the relation of the city to the lamps, of the interest of the city therein, and the price paid therefor. These are matters pertinent to the issues, and which must be considered in determining the relief to be granted, in case a decree goes for complainant. The fact that they may not constitute a bar to complainant's right of recovery does not render them immaterial, and they are properly set forth in the answer in response to complainant's demand for a discovery of the use by defendant of lampe infringi.ng upon the patents declared on, and of the profits derived therefrom. Exceptions are overruled.
SOCKET FASTENER CO.
PATENTS FOR !NVENTIONS-INli'RINGEMENT-GLOVE-FASTENERS.
In letters patent No. 325,otId, issued 8, 1885, to Albert G. Mead for a rnetallic glove-fastener, the button-hole member of the pevice consists of "a hollow socket in combination with a rivet and button-head, whereby it is centrally attached to the fabric," the spring action being secured in the expansive socket, The button-head and socket features were known in the art, prior to the patent. Heid, that such invention was confined to the form of the socket combined with an' imperforated button-head, and was not iufringed by letters patent issued to Edwin J. Kraetzer, the button-hole member of whose device consists of a socket with a tubular extension passing through the fabric and attached on the other side with a button-head, and It spring in the form of a split wire, capable of expansion and resting loosely in such socket.
A patent c£.nnot be held to embrace a device which was not mentioned by the patentee as a part of his invention, and which is not clearly shown to be a novelty and a substantial improvement.
In Equity. Bill for infringement of patents. T. TV. Clarke and F. P. Pish, for complainant. J. R. Bennett and W. B. H. Dowse, for defendant.
COLT, J. This bill, as originally filed, alleged that the defendant Infringed six letters patent. Five of these patents weregrantp,d to William S. Richardson, andnurnbered, respectively, 260,050, 300,508, 300,501), 300,510, 325,699, and one to Albert G. Mead, September 8, 1885, and numbered 325,688. Subsequently the complainant discontin ued his sui t as to Richard80n's patents Nos. 260,050 ancl325,699. The devices shown in these patents relate to metallic glove-fasteners, the general features of which consist in a button member attached to one flap of the garment, and a resilient button-hole member attached to the other flap. The defendant's fastener is called the" Kraetzer Fastener," and is made uncler certain patents iesued to him. In the present suit we are only concerned with the button-hole member of the fastener. The spring which engages the button member of the Kraetzer fastener is a ring of wire split on one side so as to be capable of expansion. This spring ring is held loosely in a chamber composed of two pieces of metal, united around their edges, one of which has a tubular extension which passes through the fabric, and is eniSaged with the cap or button-head on the other side of the fabric. The spring chamber is on the under side of the fabric and the button-head or cap on the upper side, and the two are fastened together so as to hold the fabric between them by the upsetting of the tubular neck of the spring chamber on the upper side of the central opening of the cap. It is contended that when the spring action of the button-hole member is the socket itself, it is easily impaired, whereas the spring ring of the Kraetzcr fastener rests loosely in the chamber, and that this ena l)18s it to be made of the best elastic material. I do not find the Kraetz8r device in any of