FEDERkt REP(lRTER ,vol.
Ithllik tliatthe toba;ecdln:vi>lved In'thIs must be classified as teaf tobacco, unstemmed, suitable for cigar wrappers, and dutiable at two dollars a pounll.
In re MFlGROZ et al. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. June 13,1892.)
CUSTOMS DUTIES-CLASSIFICATION--''SILK AND COTTON VELVETS-SELVEDGES.
Silk and cotton velvets imported subsequent to O<ltober 6, 1890, are dutiable on the weight of the goods, including the selvedges, under para. grap4, 411 of the tari:ff act of October 1, 1890.
At Law. Application for reView' by the importers of a deCision of the Board of United States general appraisen; under the provisions o,f section 15 of the CU8tOWS administrative act of ,June 10, 1890, as to the l:ate and amount of duty On <'ertain silk and cotton velvets imported by them October 30, 1890. The collector of the port of New York assessed the merchandise for duty on the' weight of the goods, including the selvedges, Under pal'9.graph 411 of schcduIl':'Lo:ll the tariff,aot of October 1, 1890"at $1,50 per: :pound and 15 per cent, a,dvaIOl:em" 'l'he paragraph under e;onsideration is;Rs'follows: "411. VEllvets, plushes," or other pile fabrics, of selvedges, than seventy-five per centum in weight of sflk, one doliar and fifty cents per pound and fifteen 'p'er cent. 'ad valorem; containing, exclusive of selvedges, seveirty-five POI' centum or more: in weight, of ,silk, three dollars and fifty cents lJer pound and,fiftl;len per cennnn ad valorem; but in no case ,;;hall any o,f, the ,foregoing articles p;iy a less rate of duty than fifty per centum ad' 'valorem.""" , The importers protested on the ground that, in determining the number of pmuidB upon: which the duties were assessed, the dutiable weight consisted only '01: the weight of the goods, exclusive of the selvedg'e!i. The boar49f United States. appraisers, in,thl;lir decision of the case, found, among other things, as findings of fact: ' "(2) That sald velvets werecbmposed of silk and cotton, and contained, excluding the selvedges, less than 75 per cent. in weight of silk; (3) that said velvets were pile: fabrics woven, with plain selvedges, which wer,e integral portions of said fabriCS; (4) and the specific or pound duty was levied upon the weight of the entire fabric." , ." . . ,". ' As conclusion of law the board found that the duty was properly assessed till' above findings of fact. Thelmporters'appealed, according to Jaw, to the circuit court.
Curie, Smith & Mackie, '(W.Wickham Smith, of counsel,) for im· porters. , Edward Mitchell, U. 8. Atty., and James T. Van Rensselaer, Asst. U. S. Atty. ' ' the circuit court, LACOMBE, Circuit Judge, afAfter firmed the decision of the board of United States general appraisers without delivering any 'opinion..
EDISON ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. v. MATHER ELECTRIC 00. (CIrcuit Court, D. Connecticut. "])eeember 17, 1892.) No. 723.
PATENTS-SUIT FOR INFRUi'GEMENT-Pr,EADlNG-DEMURRER-AMENDMENT.
In a sWt by a corporaijpn for of a patent. defendant murred to the bill because.it failed to allege a written assignment of th(> patent, or that the article had not been patented or described' in any
BALL GLOVE FASTENING CO. t1. BALL &: SO($]j)T FASTENER CO.
printed publication prior to the Invention. Compla.1nant then moved for leave "to file ll-n amended bill supplyinl: these omissions. Held, that such l.l. bill was not a new bill, and that defendant was not entitled, as:l. condition of nllowing the same to be filed, to have his demurrer sustained as on final hearing, but the filing would be allowed on payment of defendant's reasonable costs, without passing upon the demurrer,
In Equity. Suit by the Edison Electric Light Company against the Mather Electric Oompany for infringement of a patent. On motion for leave to file an amended bill. Granted. Dyer & Seeley, for complainant. West & Fairfax, for defendant. TOWNSEND, District Judge. Defendant demurred to the OrIginal bill. beca,use it failed to allege a written aSsignment of patent to complainant, and that it had not been patented or described in any printed publication prior to the. invention. Oomplamant thereupon mO\7ad for leave to file an amended bill. Defendant claims that, if complainant is given leave to amend, his demurrer to the original bID should be sustained as on a final hearing. He cites no precedent. or authority .for this course, but claims that the amended bill is virtually a new bill. I do not find any material difference between the Ol'iginal and amended bills, except that in the latter the omissions above stated have been inserted. The motion is granted upon condition that complainant pay to defendant the disbursements to which it has bee;n subjected by reason of the amendment, say $10, and with leave to defendant to file a pleading to the same on the next rUle day. As I understand it not to be the practice in granting such a motion to pa'Ss upon the demurrer, I decline to make any order thereon, :lnd deny defendant's motion for $20 costs for attorney's docket fee as on :enal decree.
BALL GLOVE FAS'l'ENING CO. v. BALL & SOCKE'r FASTENER CO.'
(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. December, 1892.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-AccOUNTmG-MASTER'S FINDINGS.
former and thl' fourth claim of the latter were infringed by the "Mead solid-ball" fastener, and accordingly ordered an injunction and accounting. fastener was included in the Tile master found that the "Mead decree, as being only colorably different froUl the solid-ball fastener. Held, that the finding should not be disturbed, the only difference being that in the solid-bnll fastener the connecting shank goes down through the upper plate and the material, and is upset underneath the lower plate, on the underside of the material, while in the former the connecting shank g-oesup through the lower plate, material, and upper plate, and is upset 01' compressed in the hollow ball.
In a, snit for infringement of the Kraetzer patents, No. 290,067, arid No. :30(;,021, for glove fasteners, the court held that tile first claim of the
In Equity. Bill by the Ball Glove Fastening Oompany against Ball & Socket Fastener Oompany for infringement of the Kraetzer JPatents, No, 290,067 and No. 306,021, for improvements in glove fast-