UNITED STATES 11. McEwAN.
s. D. New
York. December 29, 1800.)
ASSJ.ULTING INSPEOTOR OF CUSTOMS.
An inspector of customs, wbose official duties require him to be at a particular dock, tbere to await tbe arrival of a vessel, so as to watch the discbarg-e of ber cargo or superintend it, if at such a place for that purpose, is tbere in tbe discharge of his duties as such inspector, and an assault made on tbe inspector under such circumstances is such an interference witb the discharge of bis official duties as to bring the offender within the provisions of section 5447 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.
Petition for Writ of Habea8 Corpus. , :was arrested on complaint of one Hovell, an inspector of, customs, which charged the defendant· with having aSlll1ulted .him while4e(coIiiplainant) at North river, in the of his duties as such inspector. On the examination the following facts appeared: Th'at'the complainant waS an inspector of cUEltoms, detailed to pier 25 N.orth river, there of a certain vesselL to watch the dIscharge of her cargo,and to Bupermtend the same. ,The complainant was sitting in a small frame house atthe head of the dock, which the defendant entered. As he .in, the complainant was reading a qewspaper, and, at, that pi\rticular time was not engaged in perfoi'miiigany 'of his auties as ihspec,lbr of customEl.Some discussion tookplace between the compl.ainant'iind the delendant,when the latter struck,the conlplainant. At the1clbse of the ease for the government, defendant's counsel moved for the discharge of the defendant, upon the ground that the assault was not committed on thecoII!-plainant while he was acting in the discharge of his duties as an inspectorofcustoms; and therefore the case did not come within the provisions of '544TOf the Revised Statutes of the United States. The commissioner denied ·. No evidence then being offered in behaIfofthe defendant, the commissioner held the defendant in bail, to await the action of the grand Jury. This is a proceeding to review the action of the commis.. sionerbywrit of certiorari aI1d habea8 corpus. ; Mamell Evarts, Asst. U. S. Atty. . Heui;;Pown8end &: McOleUand, (Charle's A. He88, of counsel,) for defendant.
LACOMBE, Circuit Judge. The facts of this case seem clearly within the phraseology of section 5447. The officer was, during the hours devoted to the discharge of his official duty, at the place where he was assigned to discharge that duty. He was as much engaged in that service while sitting at his post waiting for the arrival of the ship, or the discharge of the cargo, as he would have been if superintending such discharge. Moreover, at the very moment the physical assault was committed he was actually engaged in an examination of papers officially before him, and inquiring as to the disappearance of certain
cases, the disposition of which it was his duty to know about. Where an assault is made under such circumstances, it will'be presumed that its result-an interference with the discharge of such duty-was intended. Writ of habea8 corpus dismissed.
FOO8 ,MANUF'G Co.
SPRINGFIELD ENGINE & THRESHER Co.
court, So D. OMo, W. D. January 8, 1891.)
PA.TENTS lIOR INVENTIONS-GRINDING MILL-INVENTION.
Letters patent No. issued March 15, 1887, to Jamos F. Winchell, for a crusblng and grinding mill, consisting of the "combination with a main shaft and grinders and a moving conveyer of a plurality of intergeared crushers mounted to crush the material for the conveyer, and having protuberan'ces which extend apprOXimately in line with each other, one of said crushers being geared with the main, sbaft," are void for want of invent.ion since all the elements of tbe device are old, and tbeir combination is merely tbe exercise of mecbanicalskill.
Said patent is not infringed by a mill in wbicb tbe projections on tbe crushers are not In line with each other, and the crushers, instead of being geared to the I main shaft, are geared to a counter·shaft. which derives its motion from the main sbatt by means of a belt.
In Equity. Bill for infringement of patent. H. A. Toulmin and Wood &; Boyd, for complainant. Buwman &; Buwman, for defendant. SAGE, J. The complainant is the assignee of James F. Winchell, to whom the patent in suit, No. 359,588, was issued for a crushing and griQding mill, March 15, 1887. The mill consists of three devices: First, and immediately under the hopper, are two crushing cylinders, mounted horizontally, in suitable bearings, side by side, each having crushing protuberances. These cylinders are near enough to each other to cause their crushing protuberances, in the language of the specification, "to stand in line with each other, or to lap each other, or to not quite reach each other." 'fhe shafts of the crushers' are provided with pinions, which mesh with each other, and are preferably of the same diameter,while the shaft of one of the crushers is provided, in addition, with a gear-wheel, whereby rotary motion is imparte,l to both, each rotating towards the other. The material, to bl:: first broken or crushed and then reduced to a granular or finel' state, whether it be corn-cobs, roots, bark, bones, or any like substance. passes from the hopper through the crushers to the conveyer, which is immediately below. Thia eonsists of a roller or cylinder, constructed with a suitable spiral wing, flange, or, wormj the cylinder mounted horizontally on the main shaft of the machine. On thebottolll of the conveying chamber are longitud.inal the spiral wing or flange of the cOll\'eyer ribs, acting to further the material while being com'eyed to the grinding disks, whicll the thirl! As ShOWll in the druwings,these