'1J1fiTED STATES ·17.·
tion, and to said documents, by him so certified, full and credit ought to be given, arid· that the signature of the said Hellwig is:genuine; and I further certify that the foregoing docnments, which are intended to be offered in evidence upon the hearing 'within the United States of an application for the extradition of Julius and Simon Krojanker, under title sixty-six of the Revised Statutes of tile· said United States, and for· aU the purposes of such hl,'ari,ng, are properly and so as to entitle them to be receiv'ed,ior similarpurpost's by the trilju"als of Prussia. . "In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal· of office at Berlin, Germany, this 4th day of August, A. D. Itl90.
"WH. WALTER P!u;LPS."
Hellwig, whose sigimture was certified by Mr. Phelps, istheoflicer who signed the certificate of the foreign office. ' A. J. Dittenhoefer, in support. AdolPh DUlim, iii opposition. i.'
LACOMBE, Circuit Judge. The objections to the form. of certificate seem to be sufficiently answered in the opinion of this court in Re Bell7'(J71dt, 23 Blatchf. 40,22 Fed. Rep. 699. The case against Simon seems reasonably clear. As against Julins, it is very weak, and it may be doubtful whether the evidence submitted fairly warrants the conclusion arrived at by the commissioner. The question, however, is one not as to the competency of the ,evidence, but as to its weight, and his decision thereon is not reviewable. In reOteiza y Cortes, 136 U. S. 330, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1031·. Let the writs be discharged.
STATES 17. STEWART.
(DI8t7ict Court, E. D. South. Carolina. .ranuary 7, 1891.)
ClmmUL LAW-WITNESSES FOR INDIGENT PERSON. Rev. St. U. S. § 878, authorizing a judge to order witnesses to be subp<enaed In behalf of an indicted indigent person, gives no authority to order sUbpcenal lor one against whom a bill of indictment ia before a grand jurI'.
Indictment. Samuel J. Lee, for motion. SIMONTON, J. This is an application for witnesses on behalf of Stew-: art, under section 878, Rev. St., as an indigent persoll. It appears that an indictment has been given out against Stewart, which is now in the hands of the grand jury. The grand jury have not acted on it. The section (878) permits ajndge, upon proper affidavit, to order witnesses to be subprenaed in bepalf of a person indicted; that is to say, after indictment found. If a case be not given to the grand jury, or if they find no bill, the person is not indicted. The section does not apply, and the judge has no authority to order subprenas at the expense of United States. Motion refused.
CO. 'II. CITIZENS'
(Circllilt CO'Uh't, E. D. Missouri, E. D. January S, 18111.)
PATENTI POR INVENTIONS.,...EQOITY JORISDIO'1'ION-DAMAGES.
A bill for infringement filed on the day before complainant's patent expires, and which asks no injunction or other special form of equitable relief, is obviously intended to obtain damages and profits only, and cannot be maintained, since the proper remedy is at law.
In Equity. Samuel N. HoUiday and Henry L.· Dawes, Jr., for complainant. Frank, Dawaon Garvin, for defenqallts. THAVER, J., (oraUy.) The bill in this case was filed September 30, 1889, the day before the patent in suit expired; it having been issued October 1,1872. The bill made no case for an injunction pendente lite, as the patent would expire on the day after it was filed; nor was one applied It was obviously filed to obtain a decree for damages and profits only. The demurrer must be sustained, following the rule announced in Root v. Railway Co., 105 U. S. 189, that equity only takes jurisdiction of suits for infringement when the bill shows that complainant is or may be entitled to an injunction, or some other special form of equitable relief. In the case at bar it, is apparent that complainant was not entitled, when. the complaint was filed, to any species of equitable relief. Its remedy was solely at law. Judge BLODGETT has adopted the same view in the case of American O. Ry. Co. v. Chicago C. Ry. Co., 41,Fed. Rep. 522, and this court had occasion to consider and decide a kindred question in Waahburn, etc., Manufg Co. v. Freli'man Wire 00., rd. 410. The demurrer is sustained, and the bill dismissed.
I ·. , . . ·
'II. THE E'UROPEAN,
(District Court, S. D. Florida. December, 18110.)
Where a steam-ship with a carg-o of cotton on fire came into port, and, in the absence of any private means, the fire department, consisting of volunteer fire companies, whoreceive.no compensation from the city, were called upon, and an une derstanding had that they would be paid for their services, and on account of their presence the steam-ship was permitted to' come to the Wharf, and the firemen, with two,steam fire-engines, were.engaged;flve and a half days putting out fire and disarging .burning' cotton; a. salvage of $12.000 on 0. value of .about $300,000). glvinjl' the firemen about $65 apiece, was ginn. The Crnul of The Maru Frost,» WoOd, 806, examined.,and . C81!llaQU8 b1J. the Coun.)
FIRE ON .SHIP.