New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-10-16
THE COURTS.
rs SUPREME COURT.

WAsufNeToy. ID. c., Oct. 15.-No. 140, Lock-
wood complainant agt MOrey ct al, appellants appear
from tho Circuit Court Of Massachusetts The interest
involved In this rs patent upon reissue, ior
syringe assigned TO the complainant In August 1862
which IL liz alleged has iDfringed by the appellants
Tho nser ,s that she original patentees not the
first inventors the Improvement claimed denial that
they had any exclusive IN TACT OF IN law
that the complainant has Long scqreseed IN
the public and genera use ap bs sanss
M ne opiSna description OF the Improvement pat
ented the Evening syringe" the paten-
tees claimed to have invented syringe having an
boxes containing valves arranged for the purposes OF
reduction and rejection when the sac tubes are
in the same : OF nearly the same axal
line The appellants claim that these devices, with
precisely the same arrangements combined IN what
is called the barrel syringe. shown by testimony and
described syringe having an eesto bulb or chamDeI
Ts nOs f ns ss So s and
the THEM syringe fall within the description, ana
the patentees had been anticipated in particular
claimed by them in respect OF oGIn tne ,S original
issued patent Is asserted 10 be broader
than the invention originally described, and as mat
ter OF law therefore void ItIs further insisted that as
the original patent neither imperative nor invalid
the specification defective OF insufficient the re-
authority OF law and that the patentees
claim is substantially II not technically Tor aeomblna
ton of old parts ana not ioT an ~ nytsn me
and not the invention Syrlnges containing all that
claimed the invention OF the patentee, were
long before known and used in this country.
The appellee cites and comments on sixteen Inherent
kinds OF syringes among which were those named Dy
the appellant prior inventions OF the same improve
ment show that the claim wholly unlike that OF
any former The question OF fact as to priority OF
invention and record OF evidence is voumnous Ar
gued by II. F. French and Secretary Boutwell, for the
appellants and by Austin Browne and Is. X. Curtis for
appellee Secretary Boutwell, closed the case Tor Inc ap
pellants. I'll. l a :, -,
barge Moore, appellant agt, VIM. f. Fraser owner OF
the brig Gen. Worth. Appeal from the Circuit Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan This libel s nleu py
done 20 brig while in of the tug from the waters
between Lake Huron and st. Clair to Lake Erie Both
the tug and the brig are American vessels. Oh tne
voyage The brig grounded on Peche Island reef III
the Detroit River, the Canadian side; ana whlie
grounded the barge Moore also IN tow by the tug at
the same time ran into her stern DONG tne
the cause heard the merts no question OF Jurs
dctioD being raised and decided IN favor OF the I'D
Giants II then appealed to the Circuit Court but
the hearing the claimant and appellant abandoned
the appeal merits and based his defense upon the
want Of jurisdiction IN the court because the collision
occurred the Canada side Of the boundary ne Inc
claimant appealed court insisting that the courts
United States have extra territorial Jurisdiction
force TO create rights IN foreign terrory Ihere
law in Canada, where the wrong complained OF was
committed which gives lien upon the vessel Tor the
alleged damage AS the Admiralty lien Is night IN the
thng"-juS ia re, not jus al rentle lien must depend
upon the place where the alleged right occurred
Aud there being law where the damage occurred Civ
ing lien, there such en and the Court without
jurisdiction establish IL. The appellee submits that
although the Jurisdiction OF this Court as 10 tOrs depends
somewhat upon locality yet, TO contracts, IL depends
upon persons the subject matter and the nature OF
the contract and this contract TO tow the brig contains
all the elements of maritime contract. The defense on
the merits beng abandoned and the jurisdiction being
established, it insisted that the decree should be
affirmed The argument Is still pending. j. NewOerry
for the appellant W. A. Moore and George Is HDbard
fOra