print, and publication, of an indecent character, then and there beginningwith the words following,to-wit: 'As there is life thete is hope,' and then and there contained in a paper wrapper having thereon, * * following:' Mr. W. E. Deer, then and there, the address Bluff Mills, Ind., via Waveland;' but which paper is so obscene and indecent as to be offensive,"e.tc. As the papers, when produced at the' trial, proved to be circulars that had evidently been prepared by the defendant with a view of obtaining patients, by circulating them through the mails, there can be no doubt that the description of them contained sufficiently' advised the defendant of the character and in the would be produced by the pros6C;l,Ution; contents of the document and in view of the fact that the caption of the papers was properly deto whom they had scribed, and that the name and address of the been respectively mailed, and the date of mailing, was also stated, ,it does not appear to the court that the defendant will have any in future in showing for what particular offense he has been tried urider the present indictment. It is no doubt true that the pleader might have given a further description of the two circulars complained of in the alleged defective counts; He might have stated the general tenor of the same, as that they contained a list of questions to be answered by the parties to whom they Were mailed, etc.; but,even if he haq done so, it is qliestionable whether the identlflcationofthe papers would. have been any more certain. It would still be open to the defendant tosay, as he says now, that the general description given might apply 'as well to other circulars or papers as to those produced at the trial, and hence that the indictment did not advise him how to prepare his defense. In: the nature of things, there could be no complete identification of documents such as are involved in this case, unless they had been copied in full into the indictment; butthe rule of pleading in :this class of cases did not require that to be done. In point of fact, the defendant crav:ed oyerot papers before the trial, and the court compelled the district torney to produce and file the same for the defendant's inspection. It is obvious, therefore, that the defendant was not put to any actual disadvantage in making his defense, as he was permitted to inspect the alobscene papers some days prior to the trial. Although the court expressed some doubt as to the sufficiency of the description of these circulars, when the point was firl'lt raised, yet, on further consideration of the question, I think the description was adequate, and that the motion in arrest and: for a'new 'trial! should be overruled as to all the counts. It is so ordered.
EL:tCTRICAL ACCUMULATOR CO· .".
& H. R.
(Oircuit Court, S. D. New York.
October 25, 1889.)
PATEN'l'S;FOtt INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-EI,ECTRICAL ACCUMULATOR.
I. BAME.· . f Itappeared that defendants also made eleotrodes by foroing the dry powder into the interstices of the grid by.hydraulio pressure, and then moistening the grid with fluid. 1)ywhich the pOWder is saturated with the fluid; the mixture hardening by the same process as when mixed bY: the other method. .HeW. that this prooess was likewise an infringement of olaim 1 of such patent, which covers any oase where the ll\pplication of the aotive material to the plate, in the form of a paste· . paint, or cement, is completed. so as, to leave the plates ready for use "prior to their immersion in the battery fluid...
On motion for a preliminary injunction. against the infringement of lette1"s patent No. 252.002,issued January 3, 1882. to O. A. Faure. it appeared that defendant's electrodes were made by mixing the dry powder 'of the active material with 2>6 per cent. of fluid. and applying the mixture to the plates under hydraulio pressure, by which preslmre the particles of the powder and of the fluid are brought into oloser .cOhesion, O.f the. partioles of the m.ixture, and ad.hesion to the plate; the ,fluid being an ipdispensableagent. Held, that the mixture at the moment of application, is a true paste, and, as suoh, an infringement of olaim 1 of such patent, .WhiOh is for the applioation of the aotive layer "to the supports, [[electrodes. plates, or grids,l in the form of a paste, paint, or cement, prior to the rimmersion in the battery 'fluid...
In Equity. Bill for infringement of letters patent .No. issued January 3, 1882, toC. A. Faure.· On motion for preliminary in'. ..' junction. '.. . Betts, Atterbury, Hyde Betta,CFredk. H. Betts, of counsel,) for complainant.' , ' , .. ' . , Starr & Ruggles, (Tho8: W. Osbo'rn, of counsel,) for defendants. LACOMBE,]. The question whether or noUhe battery plates used hy the defendants are infringements of the first claim of complainant's (Faure) patent, as it.stands after filing of the disclaimer, is to be determined in view of the constructiongi,ven tQ that patent by Judge COXE in the aotionbrought by the complainant against the Julien Electric Company. 38 Fed. Rep. 117. Under that construction, what Faure discovered was the application of the active layer lito the supp.orts, [electrodes, plates, orgrids,J in the form of a ,paste, paint, or cement, prior to their immersion. in the battery fluid." After hearing the testimony as to the experiments of Brush, and the other proofs as to the prior state of the art, which are again pr'Jsented ·on the present motion, Judge COXE found that the invention was one of more than usual merit, and allowed plaintiff to file a disclaimer, which should save him what he discovered. Defendants' plates have been made in either of three ways: Fi:r8t. By the use of an active material containing over 10 per cent. of fluid. This they concede to be a paste, and assert that they no longer use it. Second. By mixing the dry powder with about 2l per cent. of the fluid, and then applying the mixture to the plates or grids under hydraulic pnsure. The mixture. before application, does not present the appearance of an ordinary paste; but when it is subjected to high pressure, and when