New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1865-08-24

Without pursuing the further satisfied this. the
plaintiff ha. failed to make out any @Iass%es and that
PATENT CASE IN EQUITY, AUG. 10, 1860.
Hugh Sangsteragt Daniel ID. Miller and others
NELSON c. 1.-The bill IN bi. !, founded upon patent
issued 10th of June 1851 aud after describing the invention.
claim. the mode Of ,eehns the ampt the lantern BY means
suit was Tried upon this patent in the District of Masschn
sets at The May term 1859 upon peadiues aud proofs in
which the novelty OF the Improvement attacked aud
decree rendered for the defendants Tie patent after
ward surrendered and rei.sre the 2ls August 1855 in
which the patentees dsaned he fastening OF the lamp to
ster by spring. and also the fastening the springs to tho
upper part Of the lamp aud extending down 20 spring
outward over nange IN the lanerni but claimed me con
sTuetng aud arranging TIE springs to the attachment Of
Tie lamp NE lantern by Che oPrrlon Of the lantern
down upon the springs And also arranging thumb pieces
the base of the lamp by extending the springs toward eacn
against the should, of the iinge of the lantern.
4 he amendment OF the claim will hardly help ont the
novelty ohe Improvement against the proof OF lamps pre-
vonsy III use racing tb'tantiay similar arrangements
of the parts connecting The lamp with the lantern Causing
"the attachment lamp to the lantern by the operation Of
the lantern down the spring catches Is not
well from tho of causing the attach
the anern-the mode of fastening being the sane-whch
to hsve been in general the date of this discovery
reissue descr IN Tie original Iaicut but The plteDes
suppose that they have avoided the objection By changing the
i9rn Of the claim we tnx they have allen INTO an eifo
ject of patent but result from the arrangement and
Then Arrangement Of the thumb
attached to the spngs This il but change OF form
The spring, may petnap., be worked WIN greset ay
but Is only in degree The change involves invention 1t
is simply the device Of the mechanic.
Upon the whole think quite clear that the improve
men described In The o final piton. the one which the
claim in the reine was an aerhought resored to after me
trial in May. 1875, In the District OF Massachusetts Ana
further that upon the proofs there was nothing original or
novel set forth in either patent.
We have looked into tbe other points made IN the case
hut the ground stated dposes Of it, We iorbear to notice
decree must be entered for the defendants. dm,sins the
bill
The Same as. s. &E. H. AikermanThs Ike decree to
be entered. - go.
APPEAL IN neutrality-suspicious., AUG. ~, 1868.
Jonas Smith AIT. The Schooner Nellie D.-NRL-
sou C. J-rhi. of collision between two schoouer,
the Bird and Nellie D. which occurred on the inorn 81
the 2 of November 1860 IN beating up through the
into The lover bav of al sandy Hook The wind
northwest or wo,by Dorth snd five or sir knot breeze
Both vessel, being the .tsrbosrd tack going toward sandy
Hook beach. the Sea Bird leading and slightly windwaid
tackled about aud her rboari tack eastward passed the
Nellie D. which vessel ater going ,que 80 - 20 yare. eo
The Sea Bird after INNING out her course as Tar Is was
s sG near isse tsrSosdn before she 20, under ySy
he two ve, in contact ,tcl E5oaTd BOWS ose'heI
d9.ns conid,rlbls damage to each.
proof. with view ascertain whether either or both We es
committed any fault in navigation. aud both were sufferers
whether not the could be fry diposei 81 on tue
hypothesis that neither in fault But. AFTER the mot
creu scru'ny feel bound 10 sy tnat We can see no
fault in ,he navigation Of the Sea Bird On the contrary she
out her tack aud came about according to usage AMI safe
samsnp and could have done nothing more to avoid me
dsas'er The Nellie D. follow ing her on the tack eastward
bound 20 know that the leading vessel wa. oDsrdt come
ahou, running her sud about the ue and place
the must necessTy take psce and should nave
IN the proref per, the movement without
gcrous proximity This clearly IN her power and she
should have eHefced early enough to have avoided coming
il is Urged thsi the Neie D. was The wnlv,ri and tia.
Bird fault H. couine about with the two vessels
In that alive position. But the answer t. the seA bro hii
choice In the adopted. II she had not tacked
she would hsv. gone upon the shol.s.
Beside We do mol, tia, the Nellie ID. was 10 the
~ind"sfd On the conif-ty the wrih Of proc Is o'nrt
~e and, indeed would be dihcn' 70 account Tor the
collision Of the Two lrboti bows together at OIL on rms
We zoe nothing in tho point, that the service ofth process,
the part the b,aui against The vessel took piece "h"
she on, Of tl, district aud JuF dietion Of the court
Decree below afhrueJ
coLLIsIoN-ArPEAL IN ADMIRALTY.
James Il. Henry agt. The Steamer Pdrkersburgh.
,.c ,.,., aud The .ehoonsr J. h. Price on the
on'n f, ion Of Ami 1859 In the nig, below Barne.
sai tie coast OF Vow efsy Some eight mules below ana
nom N,wY ORR Bamorei Il = schooner from brandyvne.
Delaware. Sew Haven. The ist somewhat cloudy,
su IN. vehrf hsty m. moon when hlI .hone through
tho coads about .i,in the tho collision; the wind
There no irb, Inhibited on tie .rhooner though she asd
the rieancr vcral milo. before the sccii NJ.
wtSe eon...ed - h'm.siY AID two hard.-Day At the
wheel AM Antoine Do slut or Doh lookout A,snd BE-
fore ihr coou the rkout bad been s"n 20 house ~ t'
.ern 10 p, the line ready TO throw tie had ,nd
garci At to NON Il occurred. The ory lookout tho
D,hhin Tire sfcrai mate who in TIE wheel
house. AMI hal e care and management Of be nav aon o.
the vessel This plot house between forty and any ert
from The boa Of tie steamer.
". lave frequently ed that the officer IN chlrr- of 'hr
cation n lr j. not competent lockout 81 Ir
varlo1s dute. a. eg Of the deck incon r,br ~h
undivided attention eKaeei q lookout in tie g
pare fsr tie lookout We think clear. oreorc fo these
reasons toe steamer wa IN fln'L
shi cIpcciy ansr discovering tie steamer wch ile BANDS
w. ~ therefore With The court below tina. tho d.m.
err. should be sypsoncd and safr the decree No costs
on either aide. each party b.. appealed