UNITED STATES v. PATRICK et aL
(Circuit Court, II.D. Tennessee. December 3, 1892.)
Crvn. RIGHT8-CONSpmACY";'INDICTMJ;:NT. Anlridictment under Rev. ,St. §§ 5508,
5509, for conspiracy to "injure, threaten, or intimidate any citizen" in the free exercise of any ,right or privilege secured by the constitution or laWs of the United States, must aver that the perSons conspired against were citizens, and it is insutficientmerely to allege that they were officers conspired against in the discharJre of their official duties.
At Law. Indictment A. J. Patrick, Morgan Petty, and Jamell Epps, under Rev. St. §§ 5508, 5509, providing a punishment for any persons who conspire to. in.timidate, etc., any citizen in the free exercise of his, rights under, tlle constitution and laws of the United States, or who, in carrying out such a conspiracy, commit any felony or On demUrrer to the indictDient. Sustained. John Ruhm,U. S. Atty. J. H. Holman a:nd Lamb & Tillman, for defendants. KEY,Dismct JUdge.. (']1 two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress; threat@, or intimidate any citizen," etc., (Rev. St. § 5508,) and I'if, in violating. thepro'VlEdons of the preceding!section, any felony. or misdemeanor ,be committed, they shall be punished for the same with such. punishment as the laws of the state provige." Id. § 5509. The indictmeJ:1,t in thi$ case does not allege any conspiracy against the rights :Spumer,Mather, and, Cllrgwell, etc., as citizens, but as officers. It does not ;that they citizens of the state or of the United States. Admitting. thattP.e. sections referred to. may apply to officers in. the discharge of theiro6icial duties, it cannot be admitted that they do 'So unlesa are citizens, and it seem$ to me that citizenship should be averred. The case 9f Logan v. U. S., 144 O. S. 263, 12 Sup. Ct, Rep, 617, does not sustain a contrary view. The indictment in that. case alleged'. that the persons conspired against were citizens of the United States. Logan v. U. S., supra, 144 U. S. 265, 282, 12 Slip·. Rep. 618, 622. The demurrer i.I!l sustained.
v. WASON MANUF'G CO.
(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.
January 8, 1892.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-:-LIMITATION OF CLAIM-PRIOR ART.
Letters patent No. 192,014, issued Junp 12,1877, to George S. Roberts for an improYement in railway cars, COllflistingo of bay windows integral with t)J.e sides of, the car, and not projecting beyond thl! general line thereof, must, in view ,of the prior state of the art, be, restricted to the specifio structure described therein.
The shape of the bay wind<.ws of the patent being represented by lines oblique to the sides of the car, and meeting at an obtuSe angle, the patent
TUBMAN fl. WASON MANUF'G CO.
Is not infringed by cars having bay WlDdows the sides whereot are represented by lines extending oblIquely from the sIdes of the car, and con· nect.ed at theIr outer extremities by a line paraUl'1 with the sides of the car.
In Equity. Suit by William K. Tubman against the Wason Manufacturing Company for infringement of a patent. Bill dismissed. William K. Tubman, pro set Robert .T. Fisner and Benjamin Price, for defendant. CARPENTER, District Judge. This is a bill in equity to enjoin an alleged infringement of letters patent No. 192,014, granted June 12, 1877, to George S. Roberts, for improvement in car windows. The claim of the patent is as follows:
"A railway car constrncted with two lines of altel-nating posts, a, a, and c, c, for the insertion of windows in oblique or zigzag positions, and for forming bays or recesses in the e.ides of the car, opposite to the several thereof, substantially as [Iud for the purpose herein specified."
As thus described, the invention might well be called, as the com· plainant suggests, an "improvement in the construction or formation of the side of a railway car." The claim of the complainant is that the "invention consisted broadly in conceiving the method of forming the side of the car with or into a series of bays integral therewith, in and as a part thereof." He has not argued his claim orally, but reo lies entirely on his brief; and, if I correctly follow the argument of the brief, the words "integral therewith" and "in and as a part thereOf" iIDf!ort that the essence of the invention lies in the fact that the bays, like the other parts of the side of the car, extend from the floor to the roof, and that no part of the bay projects beyond the general line of the side of the car. Coming, then, to a consideration of the state of the art, I observe, first, that cars having bay windows as part of the sides thereof have long been in use and known to the trade here involved. I shall not undertake to describe .all these, except to notice that in all of them, so far as I observe, the windows project beyond the general side line of the car. As a fair type of the whole, I may refer to the ventilator patented by H. M. Paine, January 6, 1852, and shown in the drawing attached to his letters patent No. 8,645. It therefore seems clear that .R. car side with bay windows was well known when Roberts made his invention. What, then, were the elements of bay windows as then known to constructors? It may be taken as matter of common knowl· edge that bay windows have long been constructed in the walls of houses in such manner that the projecting space, so to call it, extends from floor to ceiling, and in such manner also that no part of the bay window projects outwardly beyond the general side line of the wall. The functions of the old bay windows also seem to me to be the same as those of the Roberts invention. The view from the win· dow is broadened alike in alL The bay window in the house wall presents this advantage, without extending beyond the line fixed by the limit of ownership or by other considerations for the outer line of the wall, in like manner as the bay window in the car side obtains the same advantage, without projecting beyond the limits allowed by con-
,.FEDli<RAT, ,REl'ORTER,' vol.
8idera:tioU&'<lf:"safetyol"otherWiseforthe general -widtho'f, the 'car. of 1$ a bay lvindow 'which projeCtsbeyoild the side of the car as 'm one which, as the complainant puts it, is in and a part of the side of the car. From these' considerations it 'seems' clear to me that the Roberts patent, properly' eoristrued, involvl:!S:art:inventioh only of the speciftc structure described and shown therein. Thus interpreted, 1 am clear that it is not infringed by l'esppnp.ent.s. They have constructed cars in sub· stantial accordance with the plan shown in the patent No. 335,770, issue4 9; 1886" tel B. Price. The bay window of Robel'ts has agel,leral outline vv4ichmay be diagramatically represented by t",o obliqueto:the side of the car, and in an ob· tuse angle. The bay window constructed,by the would in like ma;nner be represeI;lte<i by two oblique to.. tlie side of the car, and connected at their outer extremities by a lineparaJIel with the si<!e, of the car. This is not the strueture of the Roberts patent, and therefore. because respondents do not infringe that patent, be, dismissed, with costs. ' I
v. SIMPSON et ItL
(Circult COUl1,S.D. New York. January 6, 1893.)
PATENTSlI'(lR INVENTIoNS-INVENTION-DESIGN PATENT FOR TEXTILE FABRICS.
, Letters patent No. 16,379,1&Iued November 10, 1885, to George Streat tor Q.!delilgn torprinting,tex;tllefabrics, consisting of stripes of soUd blocks of to and ''''ith stripes crosEed at right angles by alte:rnating d.llrk and ijght; IlHes blended into each other by shading, "so as to imitate the woven fabric commonly known as 'seersucker,' " are void; it appearing that the patentee merely conceived the idea' of imitating seer· sucker on printed fabrics, whtch wasn'Ot new; that he showed to one Gllmore,the owner of a, fIl.ctory, a photograph of seersucker, and perhaps mdicated to him how t4E! might belmitated by shading off cross lines 'bet\yeeti the stripes, and' that the real method of producing the imitation was' worked out by a designer in Gilmore'!I factory, it not appearing that such designer was controlled by anythtng but the sample and photograph by the patE/ntee. Streat' 'V., White, 35 Fed. Rep. 426, followed.
.by Stroot against William Simpson, Jr., and others, infnngement of letters patent No. 16,379, issued No· vember 10, 1885, to Streat for a design for printing textile fabrics in imitation of soorsncker. Bill dismissed. SamuelR. Betts, for plaintiff. Reuben,L.Roberts, for .d,efendants. WHEELER, District Judge. This case, involves the same patent as Streat v. VV,hite, decided by this court, held by Judge Shipman, in A,pril term., 1$88, (35 Fed. Rep. 426.) There the design sought to be patented described. On the evidence the court then did not tJ\.e. plaintiff invented anything but the imitation of seer· sucker on 'p:r4l.:ted fabrics. More evidence as to the plaintiff's efforts has been produced. That the plaintiff talked with Gilmore, at whose factory the. and engraving were done, about this pattern,