180 ,&l;ward'Mitchell, U. S. Atty., and 'Thotnas Greenwood, 'Asst. U. S. Atty.,
LACOMBE, J., (orally charging jury;) 'This. article is, of course, a "chemidaU:otnpound,", (the term is an extremely broad;one,}and would be dutiable as such, unless found in the free-list, (Tariff Index, new, 594.) In order to show that it is found in that paragraph, the ,burden , lies upon the plaintiffs to show that it is an "acid used,for medicinal, chemical, or manufacturing purposes." Now, it appears .that this tiole is mechanically combined with various other substances in the course of their. manufacture, for the sole,purpOse of sweetening, which it dO\1s by its merepl'esence, being'added. unehabgedin condition, to ,thear,. ticle with which it is mixed. ,That maybe a manufacturing purpose, and, when so combined, the result may ,be a manufacture; but the-, saccharine is not thereby used. as an' acid in' manufacture. "The meaning of this paragraph seems to be that acids, which are used for the reason that,by,their chemical combination with other,articles, they produce substaneesmedicinal, substances eb,emical, or substances which are regarded 'as' the' fruits of manufacture, ,are to be admitted .free. But this article, when used' purposes, ianot used as an acid at all. · The article"saJccharine,. is mechanically combined or diluted with other articles; and' thereJfultant articles are pleasant to. the taste by reason Qf the circumstances Df:theirbeing sweetened with the saccharine; but saccharine so used ,cannot he fairly maintained, under the phraseology oHhis paragraph, to be an "acid lised for manufacturing purposes." Surely no one who 'makes the chewing tobacco, the liquors, or the preserves· referred to in testimony, if asked the question, "Do you use any aCids iri. your process of manufacture?" would. answer in the affirmative, on the strength .of the fact that he uses this, saccharine to sweeten his products. Verdiotdireoted for the
, The terItl''' mail, " as used in Rev,'St, U. B. § 5469, relative to 'robbing tlie'man.. may.mean aitben tbe transported by or any " ,letjiel' form,inga llart of it. '. '. .,! .
'To oonstitute the orlme,of stealil15' tbe mail, under this statute, there must beau intent, to steal: at,the time the mail il! ,
,;j,t. ."_" .,'"
Indictment for Robbing R. W. Memminger, Jr., for the DiBt. Atty. Lathrop, for the United States.
is indicted sec-: c7iJrJJhk )itry;) ,'Th'e non 5469 ofineREivised S'bitutes. The indictrhentcontains foul"countsf. Statesjanother for stealiilgfrOtn' drie' (or .StealillgtheMail of the the mail of the United Statesj a third is fortaking themai! of the United States, and certain letters and packets therefrom,and did open, embezzle, and destroy such mail, letters, etc., the same containing articles of value; the fourth count is for stealing out of the mail a letter, described minutely, containing obligation or other security of the United States of the value of $10. The things alleged to have been stolen in this are containing D;l.oney, or national bank bills.' These packages were in the mail carried on the railroad cars, and tbemtloil,matterof.wbich they wel'epartpassed through Branchvilie on the South Carolina Railway. At Branchville, the packages, with the test 6fthe mail, were put in a truck, and were being transported across the platform to another hain. On t4,eir pass::tge acroSs the p'latf01'm they disappeared. This was some time after dark on the 2d of December last.' Two days afterwards the defendant was arrested. TheJ'e werefoond ouhis person $25 in bills,and ' :dollar-sin change, small bills, and silver. lIe explained he had found the packages on the platform, after all the trains had left, on the night of 2d December, and were. , "He put them in his pocket" and went did not know away some 50 yards: "Opening them, be found the 'money in them, which he put in his pocket, and, tearing up the letters, threw them over lent, some of. the money to a friend, and spent some. The a fence.. rest he gave up. The witnesses for the, government do not prove any fact explaining how the packages left the truck. The porter who had charge of it says that, discOvering the loss very soon after it must have occurred; he searched the platform carefully, and could find no package. The tetm "mail" may mean, either the whole body of matter transported by the postal a/1;ents, or any letter or package forming a componEmt part onto You must examine the evidence in this case, and quire, how did the defendant get possession of the packages? Did he find them, as he states, on the platform, alter the tr!J.ins had left; or was search of the porter so minute in its nature as to make this impossible? " , ' If you come to' the conclusion that he found the packages after the trains had left, theI) inquire what he did with them. Did he retain them until an owner could be found? Did he appropriate then to his own use? Did he tear the packages to ascertain their contents? Were these contents, as chal'ged by thegovetnmerit, money of the United States? Were the contents appropriated by him to his own use? If the defendant took the packages from the truck,' or just as they fell from the truck, and themoff,he'isguilty under the ,first and second counts. Ifhefaund the packages on ,the pllitfc;mn after the trains left, the bare fact that he took them up does not'showthat he stole them. If, when he saw them on: the and, upon seeing them, conceived the intention to take theni; aM appropriate them, he would be guilty .of stealing them. If he took them up, not intending to appropriate them, and afterwatdscon-
ceived this intent, and took them off, I do not think that this was stealIf he tore the packages open, aJ;ld ing them, in the sense of the appropriated the contents to his own use, he is guilty on the .third aIul, fourth counts. ' You must come to yourconciusions beyond a reasonable doubt.
(OWcwtt ObWrt, N. D.nnnO'l& December 16,1889.)
Ubi.man n, as'asslgneesof Heinrich Stookhelm, of (term.any, for a filtering process . .· for beer, was not anticipated by the devices known as the "Johnson Filter," the
Pat,ent No. 878,879, granteq FebrUllry21, 1888, to .simon Uhlmann and Frederick .
A rudepenoil' sketch of an apparatus, never made and 08l'ried into practical use, to defeat a patent on the grollnd of anticipation.
In Equity.. On bill for injunction. .'. William A. Jenne:r and Bond, for complainants. Dyrenforth for defendants. . GRESHAM,J. This suit is brought fOf ofletters patent No. 378,379, granted February 21, 1888, to complainants, as assignees of Heinrich 8tockheim, of Germany, for. a beer filtering process. The bill prays for au injun<;tion and accounting. It is averred in theanswer that . was the original and first inventor, and that he soldan whicll "fas used in carrying it out, to the Il,nts.Zwietusch. guarantied the defendants against damages resulting from the use of the appawtus and process, and has thus far defended the limit at his own expense, . It is not denied that the defendants have . ;. infringed, if 8tockheim first invented Lager-beer, owing to fermentation, contains yeast germs, albuminoids 01' gluten, and othc:Jriqlpurities,. which ,need to be removed without priving the beerof its carbonic acid ,gas,also the product of fermentation,. ... Prior to the use of the StockheihJ. before the beer cess). the subject of this when beer had. reached its proper age, it was conveyed from a storage caskto a cask, at the bottom, of which chips anp shavings had been placed, for the purpose of attrac.tillg iqg,the yeast particles and, ,other extraneous substances,.: ; finer implil'ities were npt, llowever, th.us arid in t() Jorce them to the .bottqm Qf the cask, isinglai'ls, made fish i'lounds) 8tglutilwus substance, wAA dissolvedaIld injectedll.t the top of the cask, wllich,spreading over the.. surfacfl.of the beer, to' the bottom, carrying with, not already there. by the, chips and .