thereof. The petitioner alleges that in these two cases last mentioned he has filed supersedeas bonds which vacate those judgments until another hearing can be had, and that the judge of Campbell county court has approved his or not asupfffsedeas bond is a substitute for a bail-bond when a motion for a new trial is pending or has been granted, or what effect it has under the criminal procedure in Virginia, is not'.a federal question. ,Writs ofhabeus corpus in the federal courts extend to no case except where a prisoner is in custody under or by authority of the United States, or in violation of its constitution or some lawmade,in pursuance thereof;' Shaner is to be discharged upon his petition here 'frain' the ' the sergeant under the capias by which he is held, because the state of Virginia contracted with him that she would receive such coupon in payment of her demands. Not to do so is to impair the obligation of her contract, which by the constitution of the United States, to whit)h she submitted as paramount law when she entered the Union, it is forbidden her to do. ',The other question has it of a federal character, and if the petition had included the writs of capias from Campbell county, which· it does not, and those alone,we should have had no jurisdiction in the matter. The prisoner is dischal1ged from custody under the writs of capias for fines where he has tendered coupons in payment, and the sergeant will hold him, so far as this jurisdiction is concerned, under the writs he holds from the court of Campbell county. And the costs are upon the defendant.
Cuurt, E. D. illinQis. July 22, 1889.)
Where a decree has. been rendered in a suit for infringement of letters pat· ent. awarding an injunction and an accounting, on a reference to a master to compute the damages, the question of the validity of the claims of complain· ant's patent alleged to have been infringed cannot be considered.
In Equity. Bill for injunction. Coburn &; Thacher, for complainant. Olfield &; Towle, for defendant.
BLODGETT, J., (orally.) This is a bill for an injunction and accounting by reason of the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 185,458, granted to in December, 1876, for a "steam pile-driver," and, patent No. 273,904, on the same subject, granted to the complainant on the 13th of March, 1883. The case was heard on pleadings and proofs, and a decree rendered, awarding to the complainant an injunction and an accounting. The ease went to a master for an accounting,
and the master has filed his report, finding that· the damages sustltined by the infringement of the patent amount to $2,883.31 in the aggregate. of these machines, There is no contest ovei' the damages as to it bein,g conceded that the royalty which the defendant had been paying upon machines under a license to use theRe two patents is a fair compensation for the damages sustained by the construction of these seven machines, and, therefore, as to $1,183 of the damages rep.orted there is no contest. But the controversy in the case is over thirteen machines made after the expiration of the license to use these patents, and which the defendant constructed under a patent which had been granted to aI1otherpatenteee for a pile-driver. The master has found that these thirteen machines infringe one claim of each of the complainant's patents, !lnd I, after an examination of the proof sUbmitted, concur with the conclusions of the master in that regard. An elaborate brief is filed by the defendant in which the validity of these claims is called in question, but that question I do not consider as open upon the consideration of damages, and, if it were, I see no reason for changing the ruling made at the hearing of the case. The master's report is confirnwd. and the full amount of damages awarded, $2,833.31, and the costs in the case.
(lJistric.t Oourt, S. lJ. ]i'lorida.
June 26, 1889.)
PILOTAGE-HAT,F PILOTAGE-SPEAlnNG VESSEL.
It is the duty of a pilot, in speaking a vessel for pilotage, to use such signals as are ordinarily in use to denote the presence of a pilot and the offer of services, in order to inform the master of his character, and give him an opportunity to accept or reject them, Such signals should be made seasonably, so that the officers of the vessel may see them. In the absence of such signals, the burden is upon the pilot to show that his hail and offer were heard and understood.
Where the pilot left his pilot-boat anchored two and a half miles from the channel, and came with a small boat, showing no light, until within from one to three hundred feet of the steamer, and no flash-light until the steamer had passed and left him abaft the beam, so that such flash was not seen by any of the officers of the steamer, nor the pilot's hail heard by those on the steamer, fwld, there WllS no such speaking as would entitle hiin to pilotage. (Syllabu8 by the Court.)
In Admiralty. Libel for half pilotage for not accepting services of a pilot. L. W. Bethel, for libelant. G. Bowne PaUerson, for respondent.