Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1900-08-21

office the buyer might have discovered
the fraud. David Y. Park, lo3 Mass. 5o2:
Rose V. Hurley, II Ala. 50; Gaty V. Hol-
comb. II Ark 2i6; Page V. Dickensen, %
Wis. 694.)
1t is claimed, however, that this ohjec-
ton is 0bviated bv the issuance of de
sign patent. The authority for patents
for designs is found in section 1929, Re-
vised Statutes. which provides that, Any
person who, by his own industry, genius.
efforts. and expense, has invented and
produced any new and original design
for manufacture, bust. statue, alto-rc-
lievo, or bls-relief: any new and original
design for the printing of wooden, silk,
cotton, or other fabrics: any new and
original impression. ornament, patent,
print, or picture to be printed, painted,
east. or otherwise placed on or work ed
into any article OF Manufacture, or any
new. useful, and original shape or centig-
uratiou of any article of manufacture,
the same not having been known or used
by others before his invention or produc-
ton thereof, or patented Or described in
any printed publication, may, upon pay
proceedings had the same as in cases of
inventions or discoveries, obtain patent
therefor"
The difference between patents for de
signs and those for inventions or discov-
cries is stated by Judge Nixon in Thebe-
, iath V. Trimming Co. ID Fed. 2l6, as fol-
, lows: patents for designs differ from
patents for inventions or discoveries in
, this respect that they have reference to
, appearance rather than utility. Their
, object is to encoul age the arts of decora-
f ton more than the invention of useful
lr ducts. \ picture on design that
merely pie .ses the eye is proper subject
for such patent, without regard to the
q question of utility, which is always an
q essential ingredient in an invention or
r discovery patent
There is, therefore, no foundation for
the claim that a design patent fnllills the
, representations made by the vendor that
: the article was patented in is entirety.
e For the purpose of showing the r:adu-
q lent representations made by the vendors
>. testimony was admitted showing that at
q about the same time they represented t.
other persons in or about Reno, that the
# Calendar Clock Safe was a patente arti-
il Gle in its entirety, they were emp0 wered
4 to sell county rights ia the counties OF
the State OF California, and that the in
IS venton WAS entirely new t@ the Pacific
@ coast. These representations Wee So
" closely connected with those made to tn
+ defendant that ii was proper for the jur,
= to consider the intention actuating thu
,e vendors, and for that purpose the evi
4 dence was admissible.
" 1T is generally true that contempora
It neous frauds may be proved when the,
N tend to show fraudulent intent in tn
n particular transaction under invcstiga
10 ton. In the numerous cases in whicl
o. this question has been considered. Their
to may be slight differences in result, ne
"a entire uniformity in deciding in VIVA
10 cases one fraud may properly be said Il
o make manifest the intention which pei
vades another TRANSACTIONS; but the rul
III OF evidence certainly goes to this extern
a as stated in Jordon VS.. Osgood, l09 Mass
" 4ji, that another act Of fraud is admiSs
RI IDLE to prove the fraud charged, whe
Mt there is evidence that the two are part
= pursuance of a common purpose
Nichols V. Baker, % Maine, 337.
Judgment and order denying mstio
for new trial affirmed.
We concur:
Bonniield, C J.
Massey,J.
Filed August 18th, 1900.
EUGENE HOWELL.
Secretary of State and Ex-oilicio Cler
g of the Supreme Court.
Filed with printer for publicatio
August 18th, 1890.
EUGENE How ELL.
NOTICE DAIRYMEN For butt
kegs of all sizes address L. Arnol
manufacturing Cooper. Truckce, c.