to a patentable invention, and the other is whether the infringe. It was quite desirable and useful to have the means of regqlating the tension accessible to the right hand as well as to the left of the operator. Placing the thumb-screw at the top of the face-plate would do it, if mechanism could be contrived to adjust the discs by the thumb-screw at that place. Such mechanism had to be devised before it could be made by mere mechanical skill. Miller devised it, and the effort must have arisen above mechanical to inventive skill. When done it was new, as distinguished frOID the old, and appears to have been well patentable. The defendants have taken the thumbscrew in its new position, and made it accomplish. the same result as Miller did, by substantially equivalent means, in substantially the saIDe way. Miller was not an inventor of the whole, so as to be entitled to cover every form of device of that kind accomplishing the same result, but was entitled only to his own particular improvement, and the defendants might take any other form so long as they left that to him. But here they have taken the principal thing precisely as he arranged it, and have only changed the fonns of the minor parts by taking well-known equivalents. These changes may be improvements upon his, but, if they are, the defendants have taken his patented invention to improve upon, which is not allowable. Let there be 8 decree for the orator for an injunction and an account, according to the prayer of the bill, with costs.
(Jourt, E. D. NeUJ York. 1.
DAMAGE-TUG AND TOW-STRANDING
Where a tug, taking a canal-boat up a narrow creek, only navigable at high water, grounded by careless navigation, and, the tow left to itself, also grounded and received damage in consequence, held, that the tug was liable for such damage, it being her duty to keep herself off the bank so as to control the movements of the tow and prevent injury to it.
J. A. Hyland, for libellant. O. A. Payne, for respondent.
BENEDICT, D. J. This action is brought to recover of the steamtug Vigilant the damages resulting from a stranding of the canal-
boat Kate Stewart while being towed by the Vigilant up Glen Cove creek. Glen Cove cteek is a small arm of the sea running from the sound to the village of Glen Cove. This creek, at low water, is a small' bi-odk; at high water, it is navigable for vessels drawing not moreothan six feet. When the tide is in, the channel varies in width from 25 to 75 feet, and is crooked.. In March, 1880, the tug Vigilant Mntracted to tow the canal-boat Kate Stewart,then lying at the stakes off the mouth of the creek with a load of coal on board, from the place of mooring to the dock of the Glen Cove Starch Factory, near the head of the creek. On the seventh of March the tug started ,to perform this contract, taking the Kate Stewart and two other canal-boats on a bridle astern, the tide being about slack-water flood. In making the turn to enter the creek the canal-boats did not follow the tug, and the Kate Stewart grounded on the right bank near Carpenter;s dock. After some unsuccessful efforts to pull the Kate Stewart off the mud, the Vigilant left her and proceeded up the creek with the two other canal-boats. Shortly she returned and hauled the Kate Stewart off, and then proceeded to tow her up the creek, this time upon a single hawser astern, instead .of a bridle. In making the next tum it appeared to those in charge of the tug that the canal. boat was in danger of running upon. some rocks which lie near the left bank just above the tum. With the idea of preventing the canal-boat from striking upon these rocks the tug bore off to the right, and, in so doing, grounded herself upon the right bank of the creek. When the tug stopped, by reason of grounding, the canal-boa.t moved past the tug, the hawser being cast off by direction of those on the tug; but when the momentum acquired from the tug had spent its force the canal-boat drifted back, the tide having then begun to fall, her stern caught on the right bank, her bow swung around and caught on the left bank, and so she was left, her bow and stern resting upon the banks of the creek, but without support midships, so that, as is claimed, she sustained serious damage when the tide felL To recover this damage is the object of this suit. The evidence plainly shows that the immediate cause of the grounding of the was the grounding of the tug. An effort was made to prove that the canal-boat would not have grounded if she had let go an anchor, or made proper use of a pole to keep herself in the channel. But I am not convinced that the letting go an anchor in this narrow place would have prevented the canal-boat from grounding, or that she could have been kept in the channel,
1tfter the tug grounded, by any reasonable effort on her part. On the contrary, in my opinion, the of the canal-boat was the immediate and necessary result of the grounding of the tug. This being the fact, the liability of the tug seems to follow, for it can hardly be doubted that the grounding of the tug must be attrib· uted to carelessness on the part of those in charge of the tug. The first duty of the tug towing a canal-boat in such a channel was to keep herself off from the banks. The sole reason why the tug grounded on this occasion was that she held on too long towards the right bank. The bank was plainly to be seen, the tug was bound to know how near the bank she could go, and with her eyes open, there being no wind, tide, or other vessel to interfere with her, she kept oJ!. bearing to starboard until she brought up on the bank. Suchnavi· gation must be deemed faulty, and it rendered the tug liable for the damage that ensued. There must be a decree for the libellant and an order of reference to ascertain the amount.
(District Court, D. Maryland. June 6,1881.)
1. CoNSTITUTIONAL LAw-MARYLAND OYSTER LAw OF 1880-SEIZURlll OF VESBEI, -NOTICE. Under the Maryland oyster law of 1880, an oyster schooner,found dredging
in the Chesapeake bay without a license, was seized, and with her master and crew carried into Annapolis by the state oyster police. The master and crew were tried before a justice of the peace and fined, and upon non-payment of the fine the vessel was forfeited and sold. Held, that the forfeiture and sale were valid; that the law was not repugnant to the state constitutional provision that in all criminal prosecutions every man shall be entitled to trial by jury. Held, also, that the law was not repugnant to the provision of the federal constitution that no state shall deprive any person of his property without due process of law. Held, that the seizure of the vessel was notice to the owner, and that, as the law provided for an appeal by the owner from the decree of forfeiture, he could make himself a party to the case and defend his rights.
In Admiralty. George TV. TVayson, tor libellant. Robert H. Smith, for respondents. Att'y Gen. Gwynn, for the State. MORRIS, D. J,. This controversy was commenced in this court by a. libel filed by seamen for wages against the schooner Ann, a small