no way affect the decree originally prayed for. (4) Because the new defendbill are not( thereby made parties ants mentioned in said in said supplemental to the original suit. (5) Because it is nowhere bill that the made defendants thereto have infringed the letters patent bill.(6) 'Because the decree granted to RolfflrtS j 'as'set 'furth in the prayed for by the original bill would not affect the new parties mentioned in saidsupPletpental bill. ,(7) Because by said alleged supplemental bill the decharged with the crime of conspiracy. the remedy for whichls :by indictment or information laid by the attorney of the commonwealth.q,r other public officer. and not by a l'ill or suit inequil;y. (8) Becanlle th,estatutory congress for infringement of letters patent is specific as to what may be charged. and there iS"Do clausl' in the staW!ie l®killg, to, consplrl\eles. (9) Because said allegedsnpplelucntal bill is scandalous and imvertinent. I am of opinion that these exceptions, taken as a whole, are unanswered by anything brought forward in complainant's brief, and that, by the rules of equity practice governing bills of this character, it is clear that the filing of this supplem'ental bill should not be allowed. The cOlpplninant also moves that the court order the defendant to file anink-draw'ing of an exhibit knownas "Sketch of the Roebling Patent." The exhibit 'all file is in pencil. I do 110t think it would be proper for the.'cou'rt to make such ft11ordl'r. The- counsel fordefendant has charge oithe puttiiig in of proofsori his side of the case, and he may, at defendant's'risk, offer an exhibit in one form or another. If it shoulcl turn ()utthat'the in lead-pencil Oil this exhibit becarrJe indistinct orohliterated, it wouldseetll to be a loss to the delendallt, rather than to the complainant. Motions Qellied. '
et al·. 11. 'OnIENT
(C(rcuU CouTt,E.D. New York. August 111, 1890.)
"A mast,l>r !lncI crew wrQJ,lgtully discharged by the owner, 01 a fisbing vessel from eDlployment under a' llimtract for the entire season. wages to be in the ratio of the .,..... quanti,ty: ,aS9 ¢augllt. ,mill '4'llcover'd.amages for such discharge, based on the amount would bave as wages on ,the catcb of the season, less 'the amoun'b!llJtouny paid thelll, and any wages earned by them dunng the season, " J'ftl:lr,thflb;discQarge. ,,:, . .
, .' "A re't'elpt by the m'astertusuch CBse tor bls, in lull to the time of bis dis'" is no bar to a libel' Jfor, wages for the residue of, the' seasun, the ,evidence ','1' .b9win g t):J.ay it was not lntellocled asa settlement for the wrongful discbarge. ' , , ' . AfIlrlD'fhg 36' Fed. &p. 509; , "
A:oI,D ,,",''. , " DJ8<m,\MB-D'\lI(AGB-}llISBING VESSEL. " .
";'frri'.Adrriiralty. "On apPf'Al from district court.' Goodrich, Dendy &'forlil5elants. ; f-qrclaimallts.
" ',: '". , '
'Fed. Rep. 509.
the"district judge in the views ex24, agree
that the exceptions ofthelibelants to the commissioner's report'mtistbit overruled; that the libelants Field, Clark, COllins, McGuirk, Early, and Kruger, respectively, must recover thelimounts reported by the commissioner in their favor, with interest Jrom the'date of the report, May 18, 1889, but that the libelants John Fee, Page', Mitchell, and Pidgeon; respeCtively, must repover one-half of the amounts reported by theclommission.er in their favor, with from the date of the report, May 18, 1889; that the libebints recover their costs the district court,taxed at 8208.35; and that neither party recover anycostB of this court. .i .,
(Districl crnirt,E. D. J!icMaan. DecemberS.
.. S/'Ivor III to take Ilu<:b;care of .the prpperty , tabs ot'hisown property. is lIable for the pJundE!rui$' or, . property ,by his servants or agents. . , , ' . , . .,
OJ!' CARGO. OJ!' . . .· . ."
, ' : , ; '.
. .., ,
,tbe,DilssterjQfthll veaaelmay,>iu csseof urgent.neceseitY,'throw pr, ,l?tllerwise sacrUlcehUl.cargo to. obtain the releas,e of he hll.s n·o·rlght W give it awlloY.. Vnder such circumstances, donee takes no btle to the property. Is 'liable therefor as bailee, and 18 bound tos\1rrendllr it: upon 'ttio demand.ofttle.owner.,'· '" '.: i . ":".' . whQ.werethe,ownersof a tug, contrl'Cted to certain,SlplWiees toa sti.an.'ded Propeller for an 'lJ.0urly compensation. Durin.g the . 8uchservices'she received on board a part of the cargo propeller, wli.l.l:lh the officers and crew of the tug subs6quentl;V embezzled and dIVided' among themselves. libela,nts.were chargeable w'lth .the",a1tle of the property &0 . Two lighters which also belonged to libelants were also employed in removin$ portion!> of her cargo, and were sent by libelants, to a wharf to whicn.tua pUblIc .could obtain access by day or night. While laying there, a party of' hlBl'aliders came during the night, and, by collusion with the men in charge of the: liglbters, , stole a large part of their B.eld, that libelants were gUilty Of negligence , in failing to take proper care of the property, and \yere liable for ...
.. ' . . ' , . ' ·. THI:&D PERSONS. : :, , BY SALvOR;:
, : , ,: i
DUring tile performance of these 'services the oflleers of the tug entered bito a corrupt agreement .with the men in charge of. two other lighters, in which.libe !a.nts had no interest, to tow to the propeller and back for a share in suo,hipart .of the as they might secure. These ligllterswere also laden with of the propeller, all of which was subsequflntly embezzled or stolen. Reld, thlli· au'eh agreement was not binding upon theownera ot the tug, alid that they 'Wat8: not liable for the property so embezzled. . ,, ,: ,', ($'Ull.ab'u8 by I:
1n Admiralty. ,On libel fOJ; salvage and oroas-libel for embezzlement. . " " ,::, .: .L; TliiSH1)eI:was filed to recover the sum ,of for the of .Major Dana for 73 hOjlrs,fror:q,$,plclqcl$: :4. M.of!November28, 1887" at &10 per hour. 'and for 3: daY151i;useof lat" 825 pel' daYiduring ,,,In,.gupporlJ'·of