TRA VERB V. BUCKLEY.
605
SIMONTON, J., (charging jury.) The defendant, an apothecary, is charged with violating section 3242, Rev. St., being a retail liquor dealer without paying the special tax. It is not denied that he sold to the several persons, witnesses for the government, a compound of rye whisky and calisaya bark. The defense is that this was a medicine originally put up under a prescription of a physician. An apothecary who bona fide uses spirituous liquor exclusively in the preparation or making up of medicines need not pay the special tax. These are the questions you must answer in this case: In the sale made by defendant to the witnesses for the government, did he bona fide sell them the compound as medicine, and not as a beverage, or was the compound simply whisky in disguise? Is it a medicine to cure disease, or is it intended to gratify the thirst for drink? If it is a medicine, has it intoxicating quality? If so, was this known to defendant? Did he sell it knowing or having reason to know that it was purchased to be used as a beverage? If it was fide as a medicine, to be used as a medicine, defendant is not sold guilty.
TRAVERS
v.
BUCKLEY
et al. August 19. 1889.)
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Massacltusetls.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-PRIOR CONDITION OF ART.
In view of the prior use of detachable blocks notched at tbe end and under the edge for spreading hammocks. there is no invention in tbe second claim of letters patent granted to Travers November 18,1879, in "the novel use of detachable notched distending blocks" in improved hammocks.
In Equity.
Bill to enjoin infringement of patent.
Briesen, Steele & Knauth, for complainant. Browne & BTOwne, for defendants.
COLT, J. This case now comes before the court on final hearing. Since the hearing upon motion for an injunction (35 Fed. Rep. 133) the defendants have strengthened their position as to the prior condition of the art. The evidence now before me proves, I think, the prior use, for spreading a hammock, of a detachable straight block :n.otched at both ends, a detachable straight block notched at both ends and on the under edge, a curved block, in the form of a barrel stave, notched at both ends, and a curved block having properly spaced holes in it through which the lanyards passed. The Travers patent was for an improved hammock, and the invention consisted of several distinct improvements, among which, as the specification states, "is the novel use of detachable, notched distending blocks." It may be that in the patent, considered as a whole, there was invention. The only point in controversy' here is whether there was invention in the use of the detachable hlock which is made the subject of the second claim, and I am satisfied, in view of what the prior
606
FEDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 39.
art discloses, that there was no exercise of the inventive faculty in the production of this block. An examination of the records in the two eases shows that the evidence before J udgeW AJ.LACE in the case of Travers v. Beyer, 26 Fed. Rep. 450, was not the same as in this 'Case. It follows that the bill should be dismissed.
KENT
SIMONS
et al. August 21. 1889.)
(Oircuit Court, D. jVaaaachuactla.
1.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-ANTICIPATION.
Letters patent No. 325,430. for improvements in buttons cODsisting in an open central bore for use with spring studs, though all the elements, separately considered. are found in prior patents for ordinary buttons, are valid, the combination being new, and producing an improved result. Such patent is infringed by a fastener in which the cap is set by pressingdown the edges so as to do away with the filling for the cap, as described in the patent, the fastener being the same with some slight changes in construction.
:2.
SAME-INFRINGEMENT.
In Equity. Bill to enjoin infringement of patent. W. B. H. Dowse, for complainant. Harry E. Knight, for defendants. COLT, J. This is a bill brought for the alleged infringement ofletters patent No. 325,430, issued September 1, 1885, to Albert G. Mead, for improvements in buttons. The invention consists in certain improvements in glove fasteners of the type known as "metallic fasteners," which have a metallic button-hole member secured to one flap of the glove, with an opening on its under side to receive a spring stud attached to the other flap. It is not claimed that Mead was the first inventor of a fastener composed of a metallic button member and a metallic buttonhole member, but the invention relates to an improved construction in the button-hole member, and especially in the retention of the button finish in fasteners of this type. The specification says: "This invention relates to buttons, more particularly those secured to the fabric or cloth by metallic fastenings, and provided with an open central bore, which adapts them for use especially with spring studs, while in the particu· lar ·button fi nish,' so.called, combined with the central bore; and in the general arrangement and disposition of the several parts with respect to each other, is embodied the subject of my invention." The claims involved in this suit are the first and second: "(1) In a button, provided with a central opening for receiving a spring stud, the of an inclosing cap, a perforated bottom disk, a second disk above the first, the button being attached as a whole to the fabric independent of said stud, substantially as set forth. (2) A convex, imperforate cap inclosing the interior of a button, in combination with a disk to which the
