the' a'efendants and their attention to their. rqisc'onstmction of the plaintiffs' request. The law upon this subject is wen expressed bysee.. tiOD 2756 of the CodErGf Georgia: '" . ."The intention of ttiepartiesmaydUfer among themselves. .In such case the meaning placed on the contract by one party, and known to be thus understQod by the other party at the time, shall be held as the true meaning." . we be the general law of contractS. See, also, (Jarrillqnv. U. 8., 7' Walt view of the question is, in our opinion, strengthened by the When Goulding.&.eo.sent thenrst telegram of the 21st of August, they proposed a choJ;lgein thecontract,-a contract Which was itself without ambiguity, and undersf\OQ4. The telegram was not an inquiry, as stated in oneof their letters, but it was aU ,earnest solicitation for a change of the cot;l,tract. Then they were under a peculiar 'obligation to correct instantly, by the most expeditious method, any misapprehension of their proposal which the defendants had given. With such conditions, to comply with the original contract, superinduced by the plaintiffs' original telegram by a of the same wbich it was the duty of the plaintiffs to correct', cannot, in our opinion, be a cause ofaction. The is, howev.(ll', by no means free from difficulty, and itS determination in this manner, upon a motion tl) direct a verdict, agreeing tbat the decision must finally depend counsel, on both upon the construction of the written evidence,will enable the plaintiffs readily and speedily to have their rights again which I trust may be done. At present, however, we feel obUsed to direct & the defendants.
tpe plaintiffs, and Jtwas'the duty
UNITED STATJi25 fl. DURWOOD. (DCetrict Court, D. Washington, W. D. ll'ebl'U1U'7 10, 189J.) 1.
CtJll'f01[!1 Dlrrms-VrOliTI01l' OJ' LAWS-BREAKING OPEN BONDED
One who maliCiousl,. breaks inw a bonded freight-car, containing marchanllin in transit through the United States between two places in the British provinces, I.e not puniSh,able under Rev. St. U. S. 5 2998. That section Is applicable only to cars en TOttte between certain named ports of entry In the United States and cer. taln other places in the United States.
As Act Congo July 28, 1866, (Rev. St. S 8005,> authorizing transportation of merchandise in bond through the United States to places in the adjacent British provinces, prescribes no penaltiell, no criminal prosecution can be founded upon it tor brelloking open a car in transit. .
At Law·. Prosecution of James Durwood for breaking open and entering a bonded freight.car on the Northern Pacifio Railroad. Jury in.:. structed to return a verdict of not guilty.
OMCEa. fl. TONElMTEBRJD,.
P. C. StdlitltJ'n, Asst. U. Atty. Garvm.; & Smith, for defendant.
HANFORD, District Judge. The defendant is indicted under section 2998, Rev. St., for maliciously breaking into and entering a freight-car on the Northern Pacific Railroad containing merchandise, delivered for transportation through the United States from Victoria, in British Co. lumbia, to Montreal. !tis my opinion that the statute referred to is not applicable to the case, and that the defendant cannot be punished for the acts charged against: him. Section 2998 of the Revised Statutes is section 37 of the act of July 14, 1870, entitled "An act to reduce the internal taxes, and for other purposes." 16 St. p. 256. Said act provides for the transportation Of imported merchandise in bond from cer· tain named portir of:entry in the United States to certain other places in the United States, but contains no provision for the transportation of bonded merchandise towards 8 destination in a foreign country; nor is it so related to the other statutes which are in the Revised Statutes, grouped together under the title of "The Bond and Warehouse System," as to subject a person to punishment under the penal clause for interference with merchandise in transit through the United States to a foreign destination. The law authorizing transportation through the United States of merchandise in bond en rouU to places in the adja.cent British provinces (section 3005, Rev. St.) is found originally in the act of July 28, 1866, (14 St. p. 328.) No penalties are therein prescribed; therefore no criminal prosecqtion can be founded upon it. The jur,}· is instructed to r.ender a verdict of not guilty.
OAKES tI. TONsMmRRE
(Circuit Court, 8. D· .AZabama. June Term, 1888.)
TBADB-MARKs-TRANSPER-FRAUD ON PtmLIO.
The firm of Probasco & Oakes manufactured and sold candles nnder tbe name of "Excelsior Candiesl "but. finding this name unsatisfactory, afterwards called their goods Oakes' Canaies." Oakes sold out to Probasco, including in the bill of sale the right use this name. He tben entered the employ of Probasco, and continued therein several years. superintending the makinj; of the candies, during which time Probasco devised and used a trade-mark consisting of two oak trees, with the words "Oakes' Candies" printed across them. Oakes subsequently qUit Probasco's service, and several yeQrs later the latter sold the business, together with the right to use the trade-mark. . lIel.d that, as t,he trade-mark was used to denote candies made by the firm and was not a guaranty that they were made by Oakes personally, the use thereof was not a fraud on the public, and the sale of the right thereto was valid· The bill of sale by Oakes to Probasco stipulated that the right to use the name "Oakes' lIhould cease on a sale of the business by.l'robasco to a stranger. and should then revert to Oakes; but tbe purchaser from Probasco was not aware Of· this condition·... HeW. that, being a bona fide purohaser, he was not bound tbereby·
.. SAME-BONA FroB PUROHASER.
As the bona fide· purobaaer had good title to the trade-mark, he could collvey it to another, even the latter had notice of the stipulation.