." :. THE WEATHERBY.
conceal this material part of his discovery. I do not say that such disclosure was essential to tlle validity of his patent,: (that question is not before me,) but that the information withheld does not constitute such a secret as the section; or equity, protects. See 1 Rob: Pat. p. 63; 2 Rob. Pat. pp. 75, 76; (p,rr v. Rice, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 201; Johnson v. .!lQot, 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 301. The usual order requirilJgthe witness to 8,nswer'may beprepart:d·.
THE WEATHERBY. 1
SPREcicELS v.' THE
D. Pen.",..ylivan1.a.Febj.'Us;ry S, 1892.)
, :Costs wiUnot lie placed on 1lbelant,.ln whose favor a final decree has been made,
on account of the decree not ex-ooeding the amount which wil.sadmitted by respllndent's answer, although all questions in Qantroversy were deci4ed in , favor. and the' expens68 of the suit were greatly inoreasedby the large sWn ong. inally olaimed by libelanli. , j
In Admiralty. ,'.Libel by. Claua·Spreckels against the steamer erby. Motion by respondent to place the costs on libelant. The libel as filed claimed $97,000, proceeds of sale of damaged cargo, damaged witb:(.mtfaultofthe,ship. Respolldent ip answeradm.itted .52,000 due. subject to deduction for general average. For this lllUountadIDit. ted,the final decree ,was made, Which was openeq and further reduced 48 Fed. Rep. on account of ditfElren,ceip; rate of ,exchange. The expenses of suit had been greatly increasedbYl'equiring a tion for $110,000, which was reduced under and of the steamer to &75,000. Motion denied. Morton P. Henry, fQr Ourtia Tilton, for respondent. District' J udgl3.: While the court has over the of costs, and may impose them on either party, as in equity,. they ally follow. the event of the indeed except where thing unusual appears, which renders it just to impose thalli 6n the side. I do not find anything in this case which would fr9m the general rule. The that of them, at least,'s4p;uld ,be borne by the was made at an earlier stag<:l in theproceedillgs, and the subject was .reserved, for consideration unti,l this I have considered i,t in the of the invoked. by the respondent's coull!lel, but. ad9Pt his views it."
'l.Repol'ted by Mark Wilks doUet, Esq.,
BOSTON Tow-BOA.T Co.
(CWcuU CO'lIA't Q/ Appeals, Becona Circmt. December 14, 1891.)
TOWAGB--Loss OP BARGE
. A barge, while being towed through a channel with a hawser 100 fathoms long, sheered from the course of the tug, and struck on submerg"ld rocks, causing her to sink. The pilot of the tug was unfamiliar with the obstructions of the channel, and allowed the tug to go too far to westward of the safe course. HeZd, that the loss of the barge was properly found to be due to the negligence of the tug.
Tow-INOOMPETENOB OP PILOT.
.. BAMB-8ALVAGE-REMISSNESS OPOWNER.
The owner of the barge gave the underwriters notice of abandonment, and that he should claim a total loss. They sent a contracting salvor to the wreck, who made an examination, to ascerJ;aln whether the barge could be raised or her of coal recovered, and reported' that' the barge was not worth raising, and that the expense of recovering the coal would equal its value. HeZd, that the owner of the bar£l'e, in seeking to recover for her loss, was not chargeable with remissness, in making no attempt to ratse the barge or save her cargo.
There having been of the weak condition of the barge in order to induce the towage col1trlUlt, and her loss having been in no wise brought about by that condition, the fact that she was too rotten about the decks to admit of her be ing raised did not affect the owner's right to recover; nor was respondent entitled . ·to anat>portionment of the los. OD the ground but for the weakness of the barge; the loss would have been comparatively smau.
S.ua:B--WEAXNESS OP LoST Tow-ApPORTIONMENT.
AppeBlfromthe Distritt Court 'of the United States for the Southem DistribtofNew York. In Adiniralty. Libel by Charles A. Pettie against the Boston TowBoat Oompany to recover for the loss of & barge. Decree ior libelant. Respondent, appeals. George Bethune Adams, for appellant. Edward H. Hobb8, for appellee. Before WALLACE and LACOMBE, Circuit Judges. Circuit ·. 'I'he barge Richmond Talbot, while being towed by the tug Joseph Bartram, on & voyage from Stonington to Boston, struck the rocks in Lloyd'schamlel, about three miles out from Stonington, and near the east end of Wicopcsset island, and was so injured that she sank immediately. Her owner filed this libel against the respondent, the owner of the tug, to recover the value of the barge and her cargo, on the theory, that the loss was the consequence of the negligent navigation of the tug. Among other things,the libel alleged that the barge was of the value of $5,500. TheansweI',among other that the accident ,was solely due to the carelessness of those in bharge of the barge, in allowirig her to sheer from the course of the tug. Upon the original hearing in the district court,the questions principally litigated were whether the tug was guilty of negligence in taking & course too near the