nnt PIll:TER DE CONICK.
mElnt, has an increased thickness in the sheet of metal, on the inner side -of the rim. In the English patent No. 4,092, of 1879, we have everything that is :-shown in Latta's patent except that the two edges of the single strip of metal do not overlap, and are not brazed together.. They are left free, apparently,oulyto obtain increased elasticity. In a manufacture such as the production ofbicycles, in which there is suchan enterprising determination to bring them to the highest attainable point 6f excellence, ·so that each year .sees an advance in the.artand in the perfection of the machines l every improvement which watchful attention can suggest is adopted, and each improvement gives. value and importance to every ·other; but their combined'success must not blind us to the fact that. llilanyoLthem are the result of fine mechanical adjustment, and not of patentable invention. I hold that the first and second claims of the Overman patent No. 829,851, for rocking pedals, is valid, and has been infringed; and I hold that the eighth and ninth claims of the Latta rim patent No. 301,245 is invalid for want of patentable novelty. It is :but right to say that. I have been relieved of much labor, and have greatly assisted, by the thorough and able manner in which 'prepared this case for hearing and have presented it ill arguu.umt.
THE PIETER DE CONICK. 1 HUGHES
THE PIETER DE CONlCX.
(DiBtrLct Oourt, E. D. New York. June 2, 1891.)
PERSOWAL IWJURY-FALL INTO HOLD OJ' VESSEL-USE OJ' TEMPORARY LADnER,
Where libelant, a stevedore, did not make use of the fixed iron ladder belonging to a vessel in descending into her hold, but instead used a temporary wooden ladder, wbich broke under him, allowing him to fall into the bold, and it did not appear who placed a wooden ladder in tbe batch, the ship was heLd. not liable lor libelant's injury.
In Admiralty. Suit to recover damages for personal injury_ H. A. McTernan, for libelant. Wing, ShO'Udy &: Putnam, for claimant.
BENEDICT, J. This is an action by a longshore-man to recover for personal injuries caused by falling from a ladder while going down into the hold of the steamer Pieter de Conick. The testimony shows that the libelant was employed by a regular stevedore, who had contracted to load the steamer independent of the owners or master. Access to the hold of the steamer from the deck was provided forin the construction of
lReported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.
the ship by a6xed iron ladder,built into the fore side of the hatch; At the time of the accident a wooden ladder some 20 feet long had been put down from the deck to the hold,and the libelant,whel1'going down the ladder to his work in the hold, stepped upon a Jiung of the ladder which broke under him, whereby he was precipitated into the hold,and sufi'eredinjuries, to recover for which this action is brought. There is no positive evidence in the case as to who put the wooden ladder down into the hold. In the absence of any evidence as to who placed the wooden ladder in the hatch, and as it· appears that a permanent iron ladder was in position,fit for use, at the same time, the presumption would seem to be that the wooden ladder was placed in the hatch by the stevedores, who used it to pass into the hold more easily than by the iron ladder which had been furnished by the ship. The ship had furnished proper access to the hold by the permanent iron ladder, and she cannot be held liable for a defective ladder, which, although owned by the ship, does not appear to have been furnished for that purpose by any person connected with the ship, and presumably was placed there by a co-laborer of the libelant. The fatal defect in the libelant's case is that it is not made to appear that the defective ladder which caused the libelant's fall was furnished by the ship, while it does appear that a safe ladder was furnished, which the libelant declined to use. 'l'he libellllust be dismissed. I give no costs.
THE CARRIE. 1 JONES
(Di8tr1ct Court, E. D. New York, July I, 1891.)
A material man held t.o be. entitled to enforce his lien against a vessel, notwithstanding a sUbsequeut t,'ansfer of the ownership of the boat, which the evidence did not Rhow to be bonn. fide, and notWithstanding a delay of between two and three years ill enforcing the lien.
Suit to enforce a maritime lien.
Alexander & Ash, for libelant.
D. D. McKoon, for mortgagee.
BENEDICT, J. This is an action to enforce a lien for a mnteriaI-man. It is defended by one Buckley, who claims an interest in the lighter by reason of an unpaid mortgage held by hin':!. Buckley has set up the defense of laches, and transter of the vessel to one Costigan since the ring of Jones' lien. No other defense is set up. The owner of the lighter interposes no defense. So far as concerns the transfer to Costigan,
by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.