UNITED STA:TES THE UNITED STATES
SNYDER and another.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Minnesota.
One who aids and abets a postmaster in committing the offence pro:flded against by the provisions of the act of June 17, 1878, which declares that a postmaster making a false return shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, etc., is guilty of the same offence, and liable to the same punishment. as his principal.
Wm. W. Billson, U. S. Atty., for the United States. O. D. O'Brien, for defendant Bertram. NELSON, D. J. The prisoners, Snyder and Bertram, were arreste4 on complaint, charging"That Snyder and Bertram, the said Snyder being postmaster, did unlawfully and knowingly make to the auditor of the United States, for the postoffice, in said Snyder's name, a false return, * * * for the purpose of fraudulently increasing his compensation as such postmaster, under th'eprovisions of the act of June 30,1879,"
The act referred to declares "that the postmaster making a, false return shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction, '., '. '. punished," etc. '. An application is made for the dis.charge of Bertram, who,. it is ad:r,nitted, is not a postmaster. He was arrested as an aider of ,the postmaster in the commission of the offence. The defendant's counsel insist that 'no person but the can commit the act made' critiliintl by the statute, and be pu.nished under it. The general doctrine that in misdemeanors all with the offence are principals, is cO,Ilc.eded; but ids urged that 'the policy of congress in ;respect to the postal system, as shown by the numerous laws creating offences, would limit this one and the punishment affixed in this statute to the postmaster. I cannot assent to this view of the law. The act of the postmaster being declared a misdemeanor, it was evidently the intention of congress to make it so for all purposes. An employe of the postmaster, or a person not connected with the office, has no right to procure or aid in the commission of this offence, and it is not reasonable to suppose congress intended to change the general principle of the law. If it had. been enacted that the post. master who made a false return should be guilty of a felony, the new felony created by the statute has all the incidents it would have at common law, and an accessory before the fact could be punished,
though the act be silent as to accessories. Why not the procurer and aider here? The argument that the abettor and aider should escape the punishment affixed ou the statute which declares the act a misdemeanor, does not commend itself to my judgment. See authorities in 4 Dill. 410; also, Russ. Crimes. , The prisoner is remanded. Bail fixed.
(Circuit Oourt, W. .D. PennsylfJania. December ,21,1880.)'
LETTERS PATENT-INFRINGEMENT-MEASURE OF DAMAGES.
The measure of damages for the unauthorized sale of a patented article is , the difference betweel1the cost price to the patentee and the market price when the sales were made.
In Equity. Exceptions to master's report. The suit was for infringement of patent No. 66,692, granted to defendant on July 16, 1867, for improvement in saws, and assigned to complainant. The improvement consisted in providing the saw with a series, of holes, corresponding with the wear of the teeth, to facilitate dressing or filing the saw. Defendant contended that complainant was entitled to only so much of the profit as was due to the presence in a saw of the holes, over an ordinary saw without them. Complainant contended and the master held that there was or should be only one perforated saw, and that the complainant was entitled, as damages, for all saws sold by defendant, to the difference between complainant's cost and selling pri.ce of an equal number of saws. The master citedRubber Co. v. (Joodyear. 9 Wall. 788; CaWood Patent, 94 U. S. 695; Pitts v. Hall, 2 Blatchf. 229; Cowing v. Rumsey, 8 Blatchf. 36; Hostetter v. Vowinkle, 1 Dill. 329; aM found that the case of Buerk v. Imhaeuser, 10 O. G. 907, differed from this, because in that case it appeared that there were other watches in the market. Knox If Reed and C. A. Van Darn, for complainant. Bqkeu;ell 0; Ker'r, for defendant. McKENNAN, C. J. The rule for the ascertainment of the damages, adopted by the master, is fairly deducible from the cases discussed in his report, and, it may be said, from others of corresponding tenor which might be cited. It is appropriate to this case, if it is not the only practicable one. The difficulty is in the administra.tion of it. It is not an unreasonable inference that .the profit derived by the complainants from the sale of their saw is due to the patented improvements embodied in it.' Hence it was' proper to take the difference between the cost of its manufacture and the· price at which