The invention of the plaintiff consists in numbering or lettering each galley-holder, and putting a series of pins or hooks, with corresponding letters or upon the upper part of this 'piece of furniture. As the compositors of galley A put their set-up type into that galley, they are instructed by the patent to hang their copy upo}lhook A, and so on through the alphabet. By this means the compositors assort the copy and save the time of a Borter, or of the proof-reader. The improvement is so very simple that it seems almost incredible that the plaintiff was the first person to make it. But the stipulation finds him to be the original inventor of it. By reason of the same simplicity it is argued not to be an il'.1vention at all. No doubt the chief merit is in the idea, which is not patentable, of requiring the compositors for each galley to keep their copy separate from that for every other galley. But I am of opinion that when a mechanical contrivance is made to aid in carrying out this idea by lettering the galleys, or galley-holders, and the corresponding hooks, it is an improvement which is patentable. The plaintiff has patents for two other improved forms of his device j but they are not brought in question now. The defendants own and publish the newspaper called the Boston Herald, and letter their galleys, or galley-holders, and have corresponding letters upon pins or hooks, which are ranged upon the wall of their printing house, immediately behind the galley-holders. This appears to me a clear infringement. Decree for the complainant.
May 9, 1881.)
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
GAMEWELL FIRE-ALARM TEL. CO.
CITY OF CHILLICOTHE.
WHEELER, D. J. This suit is bronght upon letters patent No. 68,656, dated September 10, 1867, and Oliver Salgee for improvements in hose couplings, and owned by the plaintiffs. Manufacture and sale of the patented devices are admitted; the only defence maae is that what was done, was, as is claimed, done under a license. This is an affirmative to be made out by proof. That part of the /l-nswer setting it up is mere pleading, and not evidence. After car.e· ful examination of the proofs it does not appear, by any, fair preponderance of evidence, that the parties mutually stood and agreed that the defendants might make use of the patented invention, nor that the ,plaintiffs gave them war· tantably to understand that they might,. on which understanding they acted. What they did appears to be a wrongful infringement instead of a· matter of contract. Let there be flo decree for an injunction and an account, with costs.
FIRE-ALAnM TELEGnAPH CO.
COTHE.(OiIrcuit Oowre, 8. D. Ohio.
PATENTS-PLEADING-MULTIll'ARIOlJaNEBS-SEVERAL DISTINCT PATENTS IN ONE BILL.
On demurrer, & bill in equity setting out three distinct patents for improvements in fire-alarms and fire-alarm apparatus, but alleging that all said improvements are used in' the infringing machine of defendant, is not bad for multifariousness.
In Equity. Demurrer to Bill for Multifariousness. This bill is brought for infringement of letters patent, and sets out three separate and distinct patents.
The first pl!otent, No. 76,654, dated April 14, 1868, was issued to Charles G. Page for new and useful improvements in induction-coil apparatus and circuit breakers, and afterwards Priscilla W. Page. as administratrix of C. G. Pa.ge, and the Western Union Telegraph Company. as assignee, became exclusive owners of said inventions and letters patent. Afterwards, on the tenth day of October, 1871, re-issued letters patena
"Reported by Messrs. Florien Glanqne and 1. C. Harper, of the Clnclnnati bar.