FEDERAL REPORTER, vol. 42.
Coming to the question of the good faith of the defendant, and his infuntion, did he intend to combine something with alcohol for the purpolle of making cologne, and selling it as cologne, or did he intend to put Ilome other article with the alcohol and sell it, not for the purpose of cologne, and to be used as cologne, but for mechanical purposes, with its character more or less changed. Something has been said with regard to the question of intention. Intention is not a general question of good conduct or any general question of uprightness in the transaction of a man's business. The question is whether the defendant intended to make the sale or sales which he is accused of making. Did he intend to make those sales under the circumstances which are prohibited by law? That is the intent we have to look after, and nothing else. . . Verdict. guilty. Motion for new trial subsequently denied.
.(OltrcuU Court, D. South Carolina. April 16, 1890.)
SMUGGLTN()--EVIDBNCE-POSSESBION OF SMUGGLED GOODS.
him to explain his possession to the satisfaction. of the jury; otherwille, he will be
Where defendant is found in possession Of, smug/!,led goods, it is incumbent on
Indictment for Smuggling. John Wingate, Asst. Dist. Atty. a. $. Eillaell, for defendant. SIMONTON, J. The defendant, a seaman, is indicted for fraudulently iwpprting into the United States 1,600 cigars, smuggling them. You will decide from the evidence these facts: Was the defendant found in possession of these cigars? Were they fraudulently imported into the ,United States? Did the defendant fraudulently import them, or assist ip doing 80, or did he re9Elive, buy, or sell them, or in any manner fa<lilitate the transportation, concealment, or sale of these cigars, knowing that they were imported contrary to law? If you believe that defendant was found in possession of the cigars, and that they had been fraudulently imported into the United States, you are authorized to find him guilty, unle!ls he has explained his possession to your satisfaction. He need not, explain his possession, unless you believe that the dgars had been imported fraudulenUy,-smuggled. .
ILLINGWORTH '11. ATHA.
ILLINGWORTH t1. ATHA
(CM'euit Gourt, D. NeJW J"fJr8W.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONs-:F'RAUDULENT ApPLICATION-INJUNCTION.
A complainant who alleges that defendant induced the commissioner of patents to decide in his favor, as to the priority of an invention, by means of false testimonyand misleading statements, but who nowhere particularizes the falsehood or perjury, and who introduces practically the same evidence on the hearing of a motion to restrain defendant from receiving letters patent that had already been considered by the comissioner, is not entitled to a preliminary injunction. Rev. St. U. S. § 4915, which gives an unsuccessful applicant for a patent the right to apply to a court of equity, and which provides that an adjudication by the court in the applicant's favor" shall authorize the commissioner to i,ssue such patent" to to the applicant, col1fers on the court no power to enjoin the oommissioner from issuing letters patent in favor of one whom he has adjudged entitled thereto. Rev. St. U. S. !l 4921, which confers power on courts having jurisdiction of pat'ent cases to grant injunctions to prevent the violation of any right," secured by Pat· ent, " does not confer any authority on such courts to issue an injunction in favor of one who has failed to secure a patent.
SAME-UNSUCCESSFUL ApPLICATION-EQUITABLE JURISDICTION.
4. ,FEDERAL COURTS-JURISDICTION-COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS.
Under Act Congo March 8,1875, (18 U. S. St. 470,) as amended by Act March 8, 1887, (24 U. S. St. 552,) and by Act Aug. 18,1888, (25U. S. St. 434,) which provide that no oivil suit shall be brought in the federal courts against any person by any original.process or proceeding in ,any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant, the circuit court of New Jersey has no jurisdiction over the commissioner 01 patents, whose official residen,ce is the District of Columbia.
In Equity. On bill for injunction. Briesen « Knauth, for complainant. Edwin H. Brown, for defendant Atha.
GREEN, J. This suit is brought under section 4915 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which is as follows:
"Whenever a patent on application is refused, either by the commissioner of patents, or by the supreme conrt of the District of Columbia upon appeal from the commissioner, the applicant may have remedy by bill in eqUity; and the 'court, having cognizance thereof, ou notice to adverse parties, and other due proceedings had, may adjudge that such applicant is entitled, according to law, to receive a patent for his invention, as specified in his claim, or for any part thereof, as the facts in the case may appear. And such adjndication. if it be in favor of the right of the applicant, shall authorize the commissioner to issue such patent 011 the applicant fil'ing in the patent-ollice a copy of, the adjudication, and otherwise complying with the requirements of law. In all cases, where there is no oppOSing party, a copy of the bill shaH be served upon the commissioner, and all the expenses of the proceeding shall be paid by the applicant, whether the final decision is in his favor or not."
The complainant, in his bill of complaint, alleges that he was the first and original inventor of certain improvements in ingot moulds, for which he, on the 26th day of August, 1886, made formal application for letters patent; that, prior to the elate of the filing of his application, he constructed a model representing said invention, and in the month of July ,1886, he exhibited and explained. it to his partner, Benjamin Atha, one of the, defendants in this cause; that, after seeing said, model, and