Iput,:l.lpon pl'ePl!-,re<t hIS by M;r,s.,E. C,n>(ut, attorJ1ey' )3eaufort, S. .1nJune, blan,)q.weI,'8; selltto :panner fOil the purpose of enabling him to obtain his first of pension. ;:He took these to the is an attorney a,t law; and .notary at Beaufort. ;filled them tqe necessl!Ji"y and the agent at Knox,viUe, witll thatD!\Ilntlr'iI,ad<iress, was ,care ,of T. $, ,Tbe penEiionagenti sent the check to the of .Wben he the in<Jorsement of the check by and paid Danner its face valueJ l.ess 81,0.. ,is grossly ignoral1t anti illiterate. The defendant tltjit Danpe:r,JeJ;1,thim Danner d;enies., tlWl entirely. A moto,finddefE!ndant not guilty. ,the pensioll, claim established ·..O:ro,fut, as, and, if be not, '.'fL-:per!K>:ll: in a claim fQr pension.'! and at ,tb13, of .the r;overnment the most careful and tender consideration. Many of them they are)gqpr'tnt, and tor. t1Wm from pacity of their agents, not steps for the. ment of their right to be upon the pension rolls, but also in every proceeding which must be taken in order to obtain the installments of their pension. The defendant was·instl'umentill in prosecuting the claim of Danner, within the terms of the section. The case must go to the jury· .."'
inflip'try; 'V11 it ed ,S
OO'U'rt,N.;D.BUnoi,. Janua!'Y '4,1899.) ; " ..... " ; ," . , ....
. .·Letters Ilat8nt No. 484,087 'lllllUedAUa'\'lllt 12; 1890, to
Lalli' fot an electrio llonsistingot a:lllf6rt'ffidf,allic wire with eacliend passing through a the rail, aril void for' bolt or rivet; 'lfliich is firmly inllel'ted'i1ltOv. hole want of novelty over the Gassett & Fisher patent of May, 1880, in which the con·necting \'fi,re !e. ,colled round ,th,e! ,pftbe, rivets, of passing through them, as ItS tbe Westin'ghouse patent10f July 31, 1888;'and the Winton patent .of April 14, :which, the ends ot, the.! wires are direotlyc insel'ted in holes in the ralls. ,.
In Equity. Bill by Charles Leibagainst the'1tlectric Merchandise Company and others for infringement of a patelit. "Bill dismissed. fhUlips AbbQtt and W. for '·F. W. 1'oidefendatl&."·· . ' ,,;:.!
" " . ':: . In:' .'
BLODGE'l"l', J.;' This is a bill ;in ;equity for an injunction and aeconnt.ing,by reaSob of alleged itlfr.ingementof patent No. 484,087 ,granted
LEIB: fl. ELECTRIC MERCHANDISE· 00.
August 12, 1890, to Charles Leib, for an "electric rail-connector." The purpose of the device is to secure a more continuous electrical connection between the rails of electric railroads, whereby a more perfect electric circuit is secured. Briefly described, the rail-connector in question consip,ts of short metallic wire, each end of which is passed through the head of a bolt or rivet, and these rivets firmly inserted in holes drilled into the rails to be connected. The claims of the patent me: "(1) A rail-connector comprising a rod or wire having pins extending transversely across its ends. the rod passing thronghthe pins. substantially as set forth. (2) A rail·connector comprising a. rod or wire having tapering pins extendiug transversely across its ends. and projecting beyond the rod or wire at a1lsides thereuf.· substantially as set forth." The patentee says in his specification: "¥y invention · 4o4o is designed to obviate defects in the methods terminals or pins and devices heretofore employed; and it consists in which enter the rails integral. or practically so. with the connecting wire or bar wbi.ch extends from one to the other." .The defenses insisted upon are: (1) Want of patentable novelty; (2}that do not infringe. proof in the case seems to establish the proposition that these wire connections betwElen rails of the track of an electric railway are not indispensable to the operation of an electric railway. but that better work by the motors is secured by a wire connection of the rails than by relying solely upon the connection of the rails by the fish-plates; the contact of the fish-plates being liablt: to become impaired by rust or the loosening consequent upon the vibration or jar of the and plates from use. Upon the question of novelty, the defendants have introduced several prior. patents, showing the state of the a.rt prior to the device covered by: in questiQu; the proof showing thatthecomplainant first conceived his device, now covered by his patent! in 1889. Theearliest device cited by the defendants is what is called" the Bain jumper connectj.ou," used to.connect telegraph wires as early as 1870, which 8bowsau insulated wire cable pas8ing through the heads of a stud, at e.ach end, and with insulated handles, and these studs, being connected with the telegraphwires to be connecteq, allow an electric circuit through the wire cable. The next device in. order is the patent of May, 1880, to Gassett & Fisher, in which thednventors say: "lthasbet'n found in practIce that the usual chairs or fish.plates do not in dry.wlIatherafford sll!pciently good meta.llic continuity to form a goud .C011un account of the oxidation of the To ouviat" thi.s. elastic CQPt#,·t.!'ieces have been useu. inten,!E'd to be caused to rub by the de.the rails, and ,thus always IIfford a contact bright Dlel,al. It IS kntl\\'I'l', however, that a conductor com pOlled of many pleceslO contact with one aUother.as a wj:respllced, but·n(jtso!d.ert'd ·at ntany points,olfers more' resistanct' than one of continuuus metals.i mUar, in all othel" reslleota to the first·. 4o ·. *,Our punebing or drilling hole.sin·the tlallgeJ!
of. adj!lcent'raUs at com"enient points near, but so as not to interfere with, the raihjpint,aJlIJ,;,driving into these holes the ends of a :wire-connector long euqugb them and span the the said cOlluector being .it$ends with driving-studs a trifle larger in diametllr than the holes, ana taperi'ng. so that when they are forcibly driven into the holes in the rail they form a perfect and permanentcontact therewith, and, on account of the tapel', fit so that they cannot be dri ven out ai' removed except by a spe.cial lnstrum'ent for drawing them, thus removing from them any scale or loose or tarnished surface, and leaving the surface thereof bright where it comes in contact with the rail, such bright metallic surfaces, forced together, insuring a perfect electric connection. The ,ends of the wire_Collnector <lore coiled a\"ound the 'said driving-studs just under their heads. and the whole end then diPPlld in )Dolten solder or, other suitable metal."
Here we find a device which is, in principle of operation aud mechanical construction, exactly like that described in the complainant's patent, e:xcept that the ends of the connecting wire are:woundaround the head of the stud or rivet which is inserted in tMl'l1il, instead of being inserted in the head of the rivet, as called for 'incoroplaihant's patent. 'fhe difficulty to be oveJ:"come and the end to be aHaifled by such a connectio1l"is clearly set forth in this old Gassett & Fisher patent, Rnd the only difference is that, in the old device, the ends oithe closely wrapped or coiled aroundth'e head of the stud 'which was driven into the hole in the rail, and the stud and coil dipped in molten solder, .insure mefuJIlc contact and satisfactoryconduciing ities. The WEistinghouse pa.tent of July 31, 1883, shows a wire-connector, one 'olld (of-which is inserted in each rail to be connected. '.The 'onlyessential;differenceof construction between this devite and that coVered by the complainant's and the Gassett & Fisher patent is that the ends of the wire are inserted directly in the rails to be cOllllected"instead of inserting the; ends of the: wire in a hole in: the stud:, 01' coiling the wire tightly around .theheadof the stud, and driving' thesttid .into the holes drilledin the rails. One of the forms of construction of thecom'attached' to his plainant's patent, as shown in Fig. 2 of his ent, wastd 'upset the end oithe connecting wire, 'ana Swage it up, so as to form on i,t two pins adapted to be driven into holes:ift1the rails, thereby dispensing with the studs or rivets, 'andmakinghlscotmector'from one piece of metal. In other words;theC011nector and,the rivets studs, which entered into tho holes drilled in the rails, were int-egral.· I cannot soe, ifthispa.tentee could constructhis'device oftJi siI1g]epiece of metal, one end driven into the hole in one rail and the other end driven into the hole in the other rail, how it is possible to distinguish" the device, either as an invention or 8S a mechanical structure, from that covered bv the Westinghouse patent. Westinghouse took a single wire,' bent a" at a !ight angle, apa iIl,serted thif!short jn the, lloles drilled. for. that p.urpose in the' rails. Redoes notpJ."ovide for upsetting or swaging the ends of the wire, but that would· be a mere mechanicaloperatioll, desirable :01' not; according to the size ·of the wire used, or the size of the holes drilled in the raUa.
LEIB V. ELECTRIC MERCHANDISE CO.
There could be no invention. in the mere matter of swaging up or upseting the ends of the wire in order t6 form a larger stud, or what takes the place of a stud at the ends of the wire. Then, there is the Winton patent of April 14, 1885, which shows a rail-connector consisting of a wire, the ends of which, are firmly driven or pressed into holes drilled or punched in the flanges of the rails to be connected. As Leib does not direct as to what part of the rail the hole is to be drilled in for the purpose of the wire-connector, and leaves the location of the hole·for the connector to the choice of the constructor or mechanic, I cannot see wherein this device differs in principle from that covered by the complainant's patent. And the same may be said of the Stitzel & Windel patent of June, 1888, where the device is substantially the same. The that the complainant,as early as 1886, made and put proof also in use a rail-connector, which consisted of a metallic wire, each end of which was inserted ina metallic block, and through this block was driven a stud or bolt, to be inserted in the holes in the rails. 'fpis metallic block, into which the ends of the wire were inserted, 'was but a ®ntinuationof.the wire,.and, while· it may not have been as dumble:as that covered by the complainant's patent, it still, in all essential,particulars, embodied the principle of the complainant's patent. I think the proof shows that the complainant's form of oonstruction for a rail-connector, when one is used, is more simple and less expensive than any of the previous' forms shoWn, unless it be that shownbyWeatinghouse.· But the changes which the complainant made are only mechanical changes, and do not introduce any new principle or mode of operation into his connector which was not known in the: older art. After Gassett & Fisherhnd· shown their device for making a' eonnector from tail to rail by means of the wire wound round the head of the stud driven into holes drilled into the rAil, they would have undoubtedly had the right. in practice, tobave fastened their connecting wire to the stud,' by inserting it into holes ma.de in the head ofthe stud,asanequiv'alent for their COil, because the hole through the head of the stud was but another mode of fastening the wire and the stud inclose metallic contact. And the coil which passed around the head of the stud was in all respects the same as the hole made in the head of the stud into which the coil wasinserted, so far'RS the principle of operation wasconcemed. For these reasons I am forced to the conclusion that the device covered by this patent is not novel, .and that this cause should be dismissed for want of. novelty in the' patent; and the bill will be dismissed forwnnt of .equity. ·
BAGS OF GUANO.
(DtsU'£ct CQUrt, D. Virginia. June 8, ISBa)
A charter-party made November 22d provided for a from Liverpool to Norfolk and back, the vessel to bring over a cargo of guano, ' freight free, and all other conditions as per charter-party, 1I the c1Jarterers to furnish lier at Norfolk with a full cargo of cotton, eto., at SO shillings per registered ton, which was above the current rate ; charter to commence "when the vessel is ready to receive hel" cargo at the ladjnll." and the charterers to liave the right of the contract if she failed to arrive atNorfolk by the16th of February. ,The vessel, through no fault of her own, failed tb1arrive until Apri14th, which was too late to use the guano that year, and the charterers canceled the contract. Htfldj that the voyage commenced at Liverpool, and the cancellation applied to the part alreadY performed. as well as that ·remaining; aUd, as the guano was evidently brought free in consideration oftha high return freigh1;expected, the charterers were to pay reasonable freight'tbereon. ' . . , Under' a libel on .the gualno tor 1;l;Ie freight, the charterers could not claim a set.oir for damagesca,used by the lielay; as a set-oir is unknown to admiralty except as a'credit on the particular which is the subjeot of the libe1
2. ADMlIULTY PRAOTICE-BET-OR.'
In Admiralty· Libel O'Brien against 1,614 bags ofguano, . for freight thereon. DtJ.liree for libelant. Sharp &: Hughea, for Ii belant. Walke &: Old, for claimant.
HUGHES, J .. This isa libelon 1,614 bap;s, part ora ('argo of 1,000 tons, of gUl\no and 287 tons of ties j :brought by the ship John Bryce irom Liverpool to Norfolk. It Was taken out on this residue of cargo while still on the ship, for the sum of 81;561.83, claimed to be due to the ship for freight on the said cargo. The libel is founded on a ,charter-party entered into in the city of Norfolk on, the 22d of November, 1881, between Lamb & Co., agents the ship John Bryce, and, the Seaboard Cotton Compress Company, of Norfolk, which stipulated Jor "a voyage from the port of Liverpool, England, to Norfolk, Va.,and then direct to Liverpool, England," and which recites that the ship was then lying in the harbor of Liverpool. On the part of the vessel, it provides, among other things, that tbeship !thall bring 1,000 tons of salt or (and)gunno free from Liverpool to NOl!fQl:k, to be unloaded at charterers' expense, with cllarterers' option of-BOO tous additional, at I) shillings per ton. And' in adopting, by relerence to,the sti pulations of a previous charter for another ship of thtJ same ownel',.(the O'Brien,)it stipulates, in effect, tl)atHthe vessd should Dot I\rrive at NorfQlk by the;16th of February, 1882, and "prepare for entering on-this charter," the charterers should have option of canceling the same. No other consequence in the. nature of a penalty or forfeiture is provided in the charter for the event of the ship's default in arriving at Norfolk by the 16th of February. There is also a provision that "this eharter shall commence when the vessel is ready to receive ber cargo at the place of loading, and notice thereof is given" to the charterers or their agent. On the part of the charterers, it is stipulated, among other thinp;s, that they will "furnish the said vessel a full and entire cargo of cotton or (and) other lawful