PACIFIC CABLE RY. CO. V. BUTTE CITY ST. RY. 00.
BLAIR CAMERA CO. v. ROBEY et at (Circuit Court, D. Mas8achusctts. January 19, 1893.) No. 2,741.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-ANTICIPATION-PHOTOGRAPH CAMERAS.
The third claim of letters patent No. 1;)9,537, issued February 9, 1875, to Stewart L. Bergstresser for a camera h:lving a plate holder closed on all sides except the one where the picture is inserted, is void because of anticipation by letters patent No. 116,771, issued July 4,1871, to John and Jacob Stork.
b Equity. Suit by the Blair Camera Company against William H. Robey and others for infringement of a patent. Bill dismissed. John L. S. Roberts, for complainant. Edwin H. Brown, for defendants.
CARPENTER, District Judge. This is a bill in equity to enjoin an alleged infringement of the third claim of letters patent No. 159,537, granted February 9, 1875, to Stewart L. Bergstresser, as follows: "(3) A plate holder closed on all sides except the one where the pic· ture is inserted, substantially as set forth." In the plate holder shown in the patent the photographic plate is inserted through the front, and the holder has no other opening through which light could come to the sensitized plate. A plate holder exactly similar, in this regard, is shown in the letters patent No. 116,771, granted July 4, 1871, to John Stork and Jacob Stork, in which there is no opening except that through which the plate is inserted. The complainant points out that in the Stork holder the plate is drawn into the box by means of a plnnger or handle passing through a hole in the back of the box, and that light may be admitted around this plunger; but the drawing annexed to the patent here in suit also shows a handle for operating a flexible shatter, which handle passes through a slot in the back of the box, and around which may be admitted. It is thus evident that such an opening is not excluded by the words "closed on all sides." The structure described in the third claim of the Bergstresser patent is therefore fully shown in the Stork patent. '1'he claim is invalid, for want of novelty, and the bill must be dismissed.
PACIFIC CABLE RY. CO. v. BUTTE CITY ST. RY. CO. (Circuit Court, D. Montana. December 5, 1892.) No. 17.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-VALIDITy-INVENTION.
H. Day for
Claims 2 and 3 of letters patent No. 203,249, issued May 7, 1878, to T. '1 rope tramway and apparatus, are void for want of patentable invention in the conduit or tube covered thereby.
In Equity. Suit by the Pacific Cable Railway Company against the Butte City Rtreet Railway Company for infringement. of a parent. Bill dismissed. Wm. F. Booth and Dixon & Drennen, for complainant. Geo. H. Knight, F. T. McBride, and Geo. Haldorn, for defendant. v.53F.no.5-35
KNOWLES, District Judge. This is a suit in equity, brought for the alleged infringement of United States letters patent No. 203,249, issued May ,7, 18'(8, to, T. R Dayfor rope tramway l:\:uq apparatus. 'l'he patent was assigned to the, complainant. The defendant is charged with infringing the second' and third claims of the patent. 'l'h!?Re Iclaims relate the constru:ction of the conduit, and are in the !qllow,d.ngwords: ,'"
. "(2) 1noombination wIth the rope channel or tube, C, buflt upon the surface'oftbe ties,asshown,the gutter, B; beneath the tube and ties, substantially as herein described. (3) The rope channel or tube, C, built upon the SWfll-PEl' 0:1; the, ties, A, 8fld provided with the gutter, B, beneath, in combination'With tHe pulleys, T, having their journal boxes secured beneath the timbers, 0; '$UbstaI1tially: as ,herein
The court is of the opinion. that the conduit or tube of the Day patent cannot be said to disclose invention, and that it was not patand the bill therefore dismissed.
',!>":;' . : ' ,
THE WASOO. v. THE WASOO et
(District Court, D. Wushington, N. D. Dec. 9, 1892.)
l;CAltnmllll-WHo ARE PASSENG.Il:Rs-NEGLIGENCE. One who, after boarlllng astoomer, learns that a certain landing where he. int!lUds to stop is off the steam<>r's route, and that b.e must pay extra fare in order to sfOp thel'e, and who declines to do so,but does not change his purpose of taking passage, is a passenger from the time he goes on IDld as such can hold the steamer responsible for negligence wherebY he is injun,'Il, although he does not prepay his fare or purchase a ticket, it being the cqstom for the purser to collect fares on board. 2. SAMlll-DEFECTIVE ApPLIANCES-NEGLIGENCE OF EMPLOYES. A pMSenger on a steamer, while on the stairway from the main deck to the 'cabin deck, was injured by the fall of a heavy lantern, ,caused by the ,breaking of a halyard by which it was being hoisted to its place. The, cause of SUQh breaking did not appear. Held, that the injury was caused by a in the appliances, or by the negligence of the men in charge of the lantern, and that the steamer was liable therefor in an action in rem.
8. ADMIRALTy-VEXATIOUS ARREST-Loss OF BUSINESS.
Damage!il. should not be awarded to the claimants of a vessel for an injury to her business by an arrest at a point on her. route far from her owner's residence, and at a time when her detention over Slmday necessarily follows, unless there is proof of malice or bad faith on the part of the libelant. The Ad')lph, 5 Fed. Rep. 114; Kemp v. Brown, 43 Fed. Rep. 3p1i '.I:he Alex ,Gibson, 44 Fed. Rep. 374, followed.'
The proof of suc1).an arrest, Without any foundation in the pleadings for a crossdemand or set-off, should. not decrease the amount of the libelaAt's. recovery.
In Admiralty. Suit in rem by J. A. Mellquist against the passenger steamer Wasco, to recover damages for a personal injury to libelant while a passenger, caused by negligence. Findings and decree for the .libelaut. '