,UNITEI> STATES rI.
depce,that I would be willing to submit to the jury of a corrupt motive. All those things are necessary to make out this offense, but insufficient without proof of an additional fact. The word" extortion" implies that the money paid was extorted on the part of the one who received it, and was paid unwillingly by the party paying the same, and the weak point here is that the prosecutionha$ utterly failed to introduce any evidence whatever that this money was not voluntarily paid by Capt. Sprague, he knowing at the time that .it was in excess of the amount that was reo quired to be paid, and for that reason I do not think that any conviction of the defendant on this indictment would be lawful. This proposition is sustained by the fonowing authorities: 1 Russ. Crimes, (9th Amer. Ed.) 207; 7 Amer. & Eng. Ene. 'Law, 591; (Jom. v. Dennie, Thacher, Crim. Cas. 165. The testimony of '}Ir. Fennimore, as I remember it, is the strongest of any testimony in the case going to show that the fees concerning which he testified were extorted. He states that they charged that amount, but his testimony is too weak to go to the jury to connect the defendant with any particular transaction, as the one who exacted the payment. He states in a general way that his instructions in the custom-house were to do so and so, but fails to instance any particular order or !>truction given by the defendant. The indictment alleges that those excessive charges were made with the intention of injuring and oppressing Capt. Sprague. Capt. Sprague has not been called as a witness here, and there is not any evidence that he ever protested against paying those charges, or that he did not pay them voluntarily after reading the fee-bill, and with full knowledge of what the legal charges were. In addition to this, and in support of some one or more counts in the indictment, it is shown by the evidence that some of the fees were not paid by Capt. Sprague, but by a custom-house broker, who was acting fiS the agent of Capt. Sprague, or of the owners of the vessel, and in paying them he should know what the fees were, and the master of the vessel should also know what the fees were, and what his duties were, and, if he paid any money without objecting, it would be very hard to say that the evidence here was sufficient to convict this defendant <>f extortion. But this case is not as strong as that, because it fails to show that Capt. Sprague did not voluntarily on his own part tender and pay this money without any request' or act of the defendant in fixing the amount. In answer to the contention that the mere taking of illegal fees by an officer of the United States is punishable as extortion under this section, I will remark, in the first place, that the language used by congress in this section does not imply" any such rule of law, because the crime of extortion at common law was not proven by the mere taking of excessive or illegal fees by an officer unless they were exacted and paid unwillingly, under color of his office. And congress has indicated very clearly in the Revised Statutes that it does not regard the mere taking of illegal fees as being synonymous with, extortion. The law in the case of pension agents is a special enactmeil,f of andp!oviding fqr those particular Congress
nDERAL" mORTER, ,,"01.4S.
heen. boldrJ6!his as' a ,penslbn agent, extorts a ,sum In excess of has prescribed wh<> retams 1t shall be pumshed; and so, also,wsectlOn8169. tnereriSa plainer illustration of what congress uriderstood py extortion. andOfwpat'wasintended to bejncluded in that word. This section internal revenue law, and provides that every officer or is a who is of any extortion, or who knowingly' other and gr'eatersums than are auth,orized by law, or who fee or corupensation, etc. Now, certainly, in framing it was not understood by congress and the that mere taking of money in excess of the lawful fee, was the same thing; foriJlthis i,Patance" after mentioning extortion, they have gone a step expressly for a person who knowor receives any fee, compensation; or reward except as by law On this alone,that there is no proof that the money paid by Capt. Sprague, I think the motion will have to if yoq have any other evidence to offer, to reopen the case, I win allow you to ,do SOj otherwise I sM,n.Wl-ite out the forin of verdict for the jury.
':: ,', ',:. :'1" ;.; .. '-,"; ,
L PATENTS PO:RtNVll-NTIONs-INPRINGEMENT":-DBllDGING MACBINEB. A claim in letters patent for "the combination of a dredging apparatus for dredg· ,1ng and elevating the mllte,rial, screen for seplloratillgthe material, and a device , for elevating and discbarging the water into the soreetl, sl1hilt8;ntiallyas speoified. II held. to the use of a water-jet pipe pll'06d direotly over the screen, and lengthWise of the same, from which raised from tbtl river by I!leans, of a pulsometer was ditloharged dirtlotlyon the top and exterior of the revolving Be1'een. , , I.SA1oIll-DAJUGlilSo ' , ' , ".' ' , In assessing damage. for a brief infringement of a patent, an estabUshed. Ucense fee is not to De &dOpted'8S the llorbitrary standllord, but should be used as affording proper in connection with the qUalifying oiroumstances of the partioular ' oase, in the asoertainment of the plainti1f's aotualdamages. '
,-, -'-'-, -; -,:\) It
In pursuance ofa written stipulation thlscase was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury. The following facts are therefore found by the court : First. On'the 17th day of August, 1875, the lettel's patent here in suit, and in lieu of being reissueNCl: 6,598, were Issued upon let'ters'J,)atent No.''126,968, dated May 21, 1872, to J. Keller, for an in ,sand and:gra:ve1 separating one machmea,the first claiIn of saId re1ssued letters patent bemg as follows: