In. this ease ,the descripu.bn 01 the original patent said that the invention did not consist in what the re-issue now says it did consist. The originaill patent"carefully excluded the part which the says is the pnnea,pal portionof the invention. I do not mean to say"as matter of law, that an untruthful disclaimer, inadvertently made, of a minor part or detail of an invention can never be disclaimed, but I simply say that a comparison of the original and re-issued patents in this case shows that new matter was inserted in the re-issue, the comparison showing that the amendments which were introduced into the re-issue substantially changed the character Qf, the invention which was the subjeot of the original specification, because they reclaimed an important part of the invention which had o,n(le been applied for and thereafter had been formally waived. The other criticisms which were made by the defendant upon the re·issue do not seem to me to be impol1tant. rhesecond claim is valid, and has been infringed. When the plaintiffs shall have presented to the court satisfactory evidence that they ha.ve filed It proper disclaimer of what is claimed by the first claim of the re-issue, they will be entitled to a decree for a perpetual injunction, and an account of profits and damages as respects the second claim of the, re-issue, but without costs. Schillinger v. Gunther, 17 Blatchf. 66.
(Uircuit Court. S. D. New York.
In Equity. Eugene Theadwell, for plaintiff. Frederick II. Betts': for defendants. WHEELER, n. J. This suit is broj1ght upon letters patent No. 185,· 716, dated December 26, 1876, issued to the plaintiff for an alleged improvement in hats, consisting in extending the sweat-lining well
,13EATTY V. aODGES.
out upon the brim, crimping it over the angle formed by the brim and crown, and stitching it to the: brim by stitches passing perpendicularly through the bfim outside of the crown-band. , The principal defence is want of novelty. , extending The evidence shows clearly that hats with well out upon the brim; and far enough to be stitched through the brim outside the crown-bandiwere well known before the ol,"ator's invention, and was weU'known long' before. If the referred to in the patent means holding in place by the stitches, which in this connection is the literal meaning, then" sweat-linings so held were a1so well known. If it means shaping to the parts of the brim and crowD. adjacent to the angle formed by them, in the sense of crimping as the word "crimp" is sometimes by boot-makers, the extending out upon the brim were, in the former sense, crimped by the stitches holding them, and in the latter sense by the head of the wearer shaping thetn over the angle of the brim into the crown, if they were not so shaped before. r.rhe crimping in the latter sense was probably better done by the plaintiff than it had been done before; but that was merely applying better workmanship to the subject, and not inventing anything new in that behalf. Probably sweat.linings so extending out upon the brim had perpendicularly not been stitched to the brim by stitches through it outside the crown-band before. But as such sweat-linings were known, and such stitching was known, all the plaintiff really found out that was new was that such stitches would be useful in that place. This was merely putting old stitches to a new use, and not patentable. The stitches of that sort, and that kind of sweatlining, may never have been put together in that way before; whether they had or not they do not work together to accomplish any new result attributable to their new relations to each other. The sweat-lining would be the same fastened in some other way than it is fastened by these perpendicular stitches. Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. 353; Reckendorferv. Faber, 92 U. S. 347. with Let a decree be entered dismissing the bill of costs.
(Circuit Oourt, 8. D. New York. September 12, 1881.)
1. PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES-POWER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
-STEAM-VESsELS-CARRYING PASSENGERS IN ExCESS.
The secretary of the treasury mayl'emit claims of informers and of the United States to penalties and forfeitures incurred, under sections 4465 and , 4469 of the Revised Statutes, for carrying a greater number of passengers than the certificate of inspection permits, and such remission will operate as a. full discharge.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-REV. ST. § 5294.
Section 5294 of the Hevised Statutes, providing that the secretary of the treas-ury may, in certain cases, remit fines and penalties, etc., is not U!lco!lstitu tional. - It does not infringe the pardoning power of the president.
In Admiralty. In this case I nndthe following
, On the thirty-first of May, 1880, the steam-boat Laura, then a vessel propelled wholly by steam, and not a public vessel of the United States, nor a vessel of any other country, nor a vessel propelled in whole or in part by steam for navigating canals, and also then a steam-vessel navigating waters of the United States, which then were highways of commerce and open to competitive navigation, and also then a steam-vessel within the meaning of and subject to the provisioIlB of title 52 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, entitled" Regulation of Steam-vessels," and which had theretofore been duly inspected both as to her hull and as to her boilers, and to which a certificate of inspection had been granted on or about July 2, 1879, in accordap.ce with the provisions of said title, in which certificate of inspection it was stated that said vessel had suitable accommodations for and was allowed to carry 142 passengers, carried as passengers on board of her from Bridgeport, in the state of Connecticut, the city of New York, in the state of New: York, 422 passengers. On the same day the said vessel carried, as passengers on board of her, from the said city of New York to Bridgeport, aforesaid, 417 passengers. Each of the said 839 passengers paid or became liable for the sum of at least 20 cents as passage money. On the seventeenth of November, 1880, the Bridgeport Steam-boat Company, a: corporation, the owner of the said vessel, received, on its application therefor, a warrant of remission from the secretary of the treasury of the United States, of which the following is a copy: "Warrant of remission. To all to whom these presents shall come: I, John Sherman, secretary of the treasury of the United States, send greeting: Whereas, a petition, bearing date the eighteenth day of October, 1880, has been made before me by the Bridgeport Steam-boat Company, by J. B. Hubbell, superintendent, for the remission of a forfeiture of the passage money and certain penalties, amounting to $5,661, alleged to have been incurred by the steam-boat Laura, on the thirty-first day of May, A. D. 1880, by carrying an excess of passengers over the number allowed lJy law, viz" on a trip from Bridgeport to New York 280 passengers in excess, and on a trip from :New York to Bridgeport 275 passengers in excess, under the Revised Statutes of