UNITED STATES f1. MALLARD.
However that may be, the authorities which I haYet1:?eforerecited virtually :iecide that a court-martial in cases of this kind has jurisdiction to try the soldier. for desertion,and that its finding cannot be reviewed by the civil courts. Both on reason and authority this case presents quite a diiferent question from that where the parents of a minor make application for his release from the military service on the ground of his minority. The complainant in this case will be remanded to the custody of Capt. Pope.
UNITED STATES ". MAI,LARD.
D. South OaroUno.. OCltobei"'l',l889.'
Defendant 'Wall indietedfor perjury. The evidence showed that he mad,? a vet'ballltatement before a United Btatell commissioner, ando)larged one B. With vialatingthe revenue,law. The commissioner reduced. his statement to writiJi" beginning with the words, Mo, "being duly sworn," etc., and ending with the)urat. On being told, "It you swear to this statement, put your mark here,· deleudall' made his mark. Held, that this was an oath.
Indictfuent· fOr' Pelj\.\tY' , 'On motion .toinstiuct jury to acquit. H. A. De Batl88ure, Asst. U. S. Atty. ,. . Samuel J.Lu l for defendant.
SIMONTON, J. The indictment is for perjury in taking an affidavit before a cot'nmissioner.Thecase for the pl'osecutionis this: The defendant wentbefore·Corhmissioner Lathrop, and'made a verbal stateitbent charging one Benbow with violatingsectioi1;3242, Rev. St, The cOmmissioner reduced the statement to writing, beginning with the words, ,"Per80naUyappeared'beforemeWarren Mallard, who, being dulyswom, deposes," etc., and ending with the jumt, "Sworn to before me.»· He then read, the statement over to the defendant, asking if he could write. .upon the answer ofthedefundant that he could not write, the commissioner said to him, "If you swear to this statetnent,put your mark here.» The defendant put his 'mark, The indictment charges that the defendant waS II duly sworn." Does this evidence sustain the charge? There ili no form prescribed in this state in which an oath must or'may be administered; nor do the acts of congress lay down any rule on this subject; The oath may be administered or.. the Book, or with uplifted hand, or in any mode. peculiar to the religious. beUef of the person sworn, or in any form bindifig on his conscience. 1 Greenl.Ev.§ 371. The underlyingprinciple evidently is that whenever the attention of the person ''\1p to l!lwear is called to the fact that the statement is not a who . mere asseveration,but mUBtbe sworn, to, and, in recognition ofthis, he ilfllSked fu do'liome corporal act; and does it, this is a statement under ·oath. " And without lrilSSi'hg any book, ,elf .his or doJ8
6 Fed. Rep. 42. In the case at bar the commissioner, after t() wHtingthe verbal statement of the defendant, read it over to hIm, wIth the preface and conclusion, both stating that it was sworn to. He then said to defendant, "If you swear to the truth of this statement, put your mark." Defendant' put his mark. This was an oath. Motion overruled.
BOYD V.STEDMAN (Of.rcuU Oourt, D. Massachusetts.
Ootober 5, 1889.,
PATBNTS J'OR INVENTIONS-PRIOR STATB OJ' THE ART.
In letters patent No. 236,766, dated January 18,1881, for Improved moohlnery for wInding yarn, the fifth olaim was for a movable carrier with a aete<:tor lever stop the winding of a particular spool when the thread breaks, and With a combination which pushes the detector lever out of the way of the cam-slmft.Held, that as the English vateut of Muir Bud McIlwham (1866) showed devices for pushing the deteotor lever away from the cam, of which complainant's combination was only an Improvement, it is not infringed by an Invention elfectlng the same purpose, but by a different arrangement.
ment of patent. Howson & Howson and T. L. !Jivermore, for complainant. Browne & Browne, for defendants.
Joh:Q Boy<i.sued William L. Stedn1an and others to restrain infringe-
CoLT, J ·. This bill cha,rges infringement of complainant's patent 1\0. 236,766, dated January 18, 1881, for improvements in machinery for and winding yarns. This suit relates to the mechanism em, ployed in ,such machines for stopping the winding action of any particular spool when a thread which is being wound upon it breaks Of fails. , In devices of this class, the yarn is passed through an eye or hook at the upper end of what is called a" detector lever," which is mounted upon a movable carrier. So long as the yarn is unbroken, the detector is sns, pended in a raised position. If, however, the yarn breaks, the detector drops, and its lower end comes in contact with a rotating cam-shaft. The effect of this action is to release !l catch" mechanism, which causes, through action of other mechanisms, the rotation of the particular bobbin. tQ stop. The efficiency of devices of this kind seems to depend upon the firm hold of the catch mechanism so long as the yarn is unbroken, and on the quick release of that mechanism, with the least possible friction, when a thread breaks. The fifth claim of the patent, which is a.IIeged to be infringed, relates toacombination of devices constituting an improvement in "stop The claim is as follows: "The combination of Q bracket and 'movable carrier, having Bcatch with a detector on said carrier, a weig,Qted catch-level'. 39, and rotating camshaft. 48.aqapted to aot directly on the end of the detector lever when the latter falls into its path. and release the lever, 39. the descent of which pushes the carrier inwai'd to take the detector lever clear of said cam-shaft."