The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-02-24

iIs lO41
 Apartment House Held Unpatent- : able.- In American Disappearing Bed Go. vs. Arnaelsteen an action is
 brought to recover damages for the infringement of a patent. Plaintiff has invented a new bed, indescribable and involved in mystery, which by mere presto" or other necessary , charm immediately makes itself scarce" Defendant, regardless of the fact that a patent has been secured on the bed. has made one just like it , to plaintiffs great damage Hence this case, found reported in 1s2 Federal Reporter. 324. The essential features of the invention are the construction of adjacent rooms in an apartment house in such way that in one of the rooms, by the use of double floor, a recess is created into which a bed from the adjoining room may be slowed when not in use, thereby clos ing the opening between the rooms so as to leave no suggestion of a bed. Defendant contended that the inven- tion was not within any of the class es of those which are made patent
 able by law, since patents may only be obtained, for any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or compo- s:tion of matter, or any new, original and ornamental design for any arti- cle of manufacture. It is claimed by plaintiff that the bed comes within the term manufacture" The Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. holds that since, as used in the patent laws, manufactures comprise articles or implements made by human agency from raw or prepared mattr:als, it. would be a gross misuse of the word to say that a house. or room in a house, is manufactured. The patent was held void and no damages allowed.
 Prisoner Whipped to Deatf.-Let us hope that the case in 131 Southwest ern Reporter, 969, is not a fair exam pie of the trea tnent administered to convicts in every prison, but rather the only exception. The title is Tillaravs. ed of misdemeanersla and: sent to the convict farm of Tillar.s where he was placed under the custody of the war den. On certain morning. because; of some misconduct, the warden com pelIed. Reynolds to remove his cloth- ing and lie down across log, face downward, where he was held other men, With a. leather strap about 30 inches long, 4 inches wide, and three-fourths of an inch thick, fasten- ed to ay staff, the warden then cruelty beat him across the small part of his back, using both hands to wield the blows. After this barbarous cruelty
 
 sun of a day in July, and compelled to work until he reeled and staggered like drunkenman when he was sent from the field groaning with pain, He was given no medical attendance, and died early that evening. Deceased was three little children, aged 3, $. and z, who bring this action against the own CT of the convict farm. The Supreme Court of Arkansas holds that defen- dant is liable for the conduct of the warden, his agent, because the whip ping was within the scope of his au- thority, though in excess of the pris- on rules. A verdict of s3,75O was af- f1rmed.
 Injuries from Cranlztng an .Automo- bile.-A case which has caused con- siderable comment is that of Fisher rs. McGrath. 12s. Northwestern Re- porter, 579. Plaintiff, young lady, was driving buggy drawn by a gen tie horse along a country road, when at a short distance ahead she saw an automobile standing stationary, and defendant on his knees looking at it. Having no reason to anticipate when opposite the machine defendant, without giving any warning, suddenly started his motor, which caused the usual and familiar nerve-wrecking noise made by an automobile when cranked. The horse was frightened and whir1ed to the left. throwing plaintiff into the ditch and seriously injuring her. The lower court on motion, dismissed the action on the ground that the evidence showed no negligence on defendants part. The Supreme Court of Minnesota agrees with the trial judge that defendant had right to stop his automobile for a req asonable time to adjust it. and that the mere fact of starting it was no evidence of negligence; but this was not the negligence charged in the complaint, which alleged that the au- tomobile was suddenly set in motion without warning to the plaintiff. The court holds that the failure to warn p1a aintiff of his intention to start the motor is the gist of the cause of ac- tion. and that this negligence was a question for the jury. The lower court having erred in not submitting the case to the jury, a new trial was granted. h
 Signs of attempts to introduce new