well understood by smokers to be desirable, and isa very differenttbing from one with a cement-lined bowl. It did not involve invention of any high order to make such a pipe; but there was enough to convert a poor article into a good one, and supply something to the trade which was new, and the merits of which were immediately and generally recognized. If the defendant chooses to sell the old Jackson pipe, he is at liberty to do so; but he has appropriated the rights of the complainant by selling thfl pipe of the patent, and must take the consequences. !. decree is ordered for an injunction and accounting.
.(Cwcuit Court, S. D. New York. July 1, 18110.)
PATENTS FOR INVBNTIONs-AoTION FOR INFRINGBMBNT-PRAOTIOB.
The defendant to state whether he has-in his possession the machine which is alleged to be an infringement of plaintiff's patent, though the plaintiff has not previously made out a prima fac/,e case of infringement.
,:, In Equity. Witter <to Kenyon, for complainants. Shipman, Barlow, Larocque <to Ohoate, for defendant.
LACOMBE, J. This is an application to compel the defendant, called as a witness for the complainants, to answer two questions. The suit is for infringement of a patent for a hot-air pumping engine. The questions are cHrect,ed to the ascertainment of whether or not the defendant, S,ubsequent to the date of the patent, and prior to the commencement of the suit, had upon his premises, at No. 171 Avenue C, in this city, a hot:air pqp1ping engine. The manifest intention is to follow up these qUeRtions by others, showing that the engine which it is supposed he had and used was an infringinK machine. It is objected that this cannot be showll by the defendant's testimony until the complainants first, makes out a prima facie, case of infringement. Reference is made to a third circuit, (Oelluloid 00. v. OrQIM 00.) in which it is Said that a similar objection was sustained. As there was no opinion filed in .that case, however, there is nothing to show upon what ground that court. exclttded it. Certainly there is no rule. or practice in this circuit which would require the exclusion of the questions which have been certifj,edin this case. It is not claimed that defendant is the manUfacturerof the machine, and the simplest and·most efficient'way to discover had one is to ask him. The witness himself declined to answer ,ol,l the ground that the question was an "inquiry into his private .To sustain such an objection would no doubt be very venient. for, those who buy and use infringing machines,but no good doing is shown here.
COMERFORD II. THE MELVINA.
(.Dlsttr£ct Oaurt, N. D. nUnotB. March 81, 1890.)
COLLISION-VESSEL AT ANCHOR.
A schooner at hoisted her sails in order to assist in loosentnp; the anchor. When the anchor broke from the bottom. the schooner started with the master alone on deck, the entire crew being engaged at the windlass, and collided with another vessel lying at anchor a third of a mile to leeward. The evidence showed that the master of the schooner could have avoided the collision by putting his wheel hard to port. Held, that the schooner was responsible for the collision. Where a schooner's jib-boom is broken ofr by a collision. the vessel responsible therefor is also liable for demurrage caused by going into a port of repair, where there is any increase of risk in continuing the voyage without a jib-boom; though it is possible that the schooner might have made the voyage, successfully, but it is not liable for additional delay caused by want of skill in making the repairs.
SUrE-MEASURE OF DAMAGES.
In Admiralty. Thomaa Hood, for libelant. Schuyler &: Kremer, for respondent. BLODGETT, J. This is a libel by the owner of the schooner Blazing Star for damages sustained by his schooner from a collision with the schooner Melvina in the waters of Lake Huron on the morning of October 17, 1888. The proof shows that, on the morning in question, the schooners Melvina and Blazing' Star lay at anchor in the shelter of the east side of Cove island, in the entrance to the Georgian bay, where they had taken refuge from a gale about 36 hours before. The weather had become pleasant, with a moderate wind from the S. W. or S. S. W., and about 8 o'clock in the morning the crews of both schooners began preparations to get away, both being bound for Cheboygan, Mich., for cargoes of lumber to transport to the port of Chicago. The Melvina lay nearer the shore than the Blazing Star, and each was in from 16 to 17 fathoms of water. They were, as nearly as lean make it from the proof, about one-third of a mile apart, and each had out its heaviest anchor, with about 50 fathoms of chain. The crew of the Melvina were unable to break her anchor clear from its hold on the bottom by the windlass alone, and the sails were set to aid them in doinl!: so, the result of which waS that, when the anchor broke from the bottom, the schooner wa.s standing on the port tack with her main boom a few feet over thesta!board quarter, in a direction which took her close across the bows of the ing Star. The crew of the Blazing Star were at that time engaged in heaving at her anchor, but had not got it off the bottom, so that she Was swinging on her chain with her bow in the wind. All handa, but the master of the Melvina, continued heaving at her anchor after it left the bottom for the purpose of getting it on board, and the master had the wheel, he alone attending to the navigation of his vessel. Possibly she made a little leeway without the master's being aware of it, but, whether that be 80 or not, she passed so close to the Blazing Star that her main lift caught the end of the jib-boom of the Blazing Stat', and broke. it off at the junction with the bowsprit, which is the direct damage co1!l. plainedof.