Opinion of the Court.

There has

no intent can be imputed to defendant to convey information to other than the persons named in the letters sent by him, and that as they were fictitious persons there could in law be no intent to give information to any one. This objection was properly overruled by the trial court. been much discussion as to the relations of detectives to crime, and counsel for defendant relies upon the cases of United States v. Whittier, 5 Dillon, 35; United States v. Matthews, 35 Fed. Rep. 890; United States v. Adams, 59 Fed. Rep. 674; Saunders v. People, 38 Michigan, 218, in support of the contention that no conviction can be sustained under the facts in this case.

It is unnecessary to review these cases, and it is enough to say that we do not think they warrant the contention of counsel. It does not appear that it was the purpose of the postoffice inspector to induce or solicit the commission of a crime, but it was to ascertain whether the defendant was engaged in an unlawful business. The mere facts that the letters were written under an assumed name, and that he was a government official — a detective, he may be called - do not of themselves constitute a defence to the crime actually committed. The official, suspecting that the defendant was engaged in a business offensive to good morals, sought information directly from him, and the defendant, responding thereto, violated a law of the United States by using the mails to convey such information, and he cannot plead in defence that he would not have violated the law if inquiry had not been made of him by such government official. The authorities in support of this proposition are many and well considered. Among others reference may be made to the cases of Bates v. United States, 10 Fed. Rep. 92, and the authorities collected in a note of Mr. Wharton, on page 97; United States v. Moore, 19 Fed. Rep. 39; United States v. Wight, 38 Fed. Rep. 106, in which the opinion was delivered by Mr. Justice Brown, then District Judge, and concurred in by Mr. Justice Jackson, then Circuit Judge; United States v. Dorsey, 40 Fed. Rep. 752; Commonwealth v. Baker, 155 Mass. 287, in which the court held that one who goes to a house alleged to be kept for illegal gaming,

Syllabus.

and engages in such gaming himself for the express purpose of appearing as a witness for the government against the proprietor, is not an accomplice, and the case is not subject to the rule that no conviction should be had on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice; People v. Noelke, 94 N. Y. 137, in which the same doctrine was laid down as to the purchaser of a lottery ticket, who purchased for the purpose of detecting and punishing the vendor; State v. Jansen, 22 Kansas, 498, in which the court, citing several authorities, discusses at some length the question as to the extent to which participation by a detective affects the liability of a defendant for a crime committed by the two jointly; State v. Stickney, 53 Kansas, 308. But it is unnecessary to multiply authorities. The law was actually violated by the defendant; he placed letters in the post-office which conveyed information as to where obscene matter could be obtained, and he placed them there with a view of giving such information to the person who should actually receive those letters, no matter what his name; and the fact that the person who wrote under these assumed names and received his letters was a government detective in no manner detracts from his guilt.

These are all the questions presented by counsel. We see no error in the rulings of the trial court, and the judgment is, therefore,

Affirmed.

BLACK DIAMOND COAL MINING COMPANY v. EXCELSIOR COAL COMPANY.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

If there be any invention in the machine patented to Martin R. Roberts by reissued letters patent No. 7341 for an improvement in coal screens and chutes, dated October 10, 1876, (upon which the court expresses no opinion,) it is clear that it was not infringed by the defendant's machine. The court takes judicial notice of the fact that hoppers with chutes beneath them are used for many different purposes.

Statement of the Case.

THIS was an action at law by the Excelsior Coal Company to recover damages for the infringement of reissued letters patent No. 7341, granted October 10, 1876, to Martin R. Roberts for an "improvement in coal screens and chutes."

It seems, by the statement of the patentee, that, previous to this invention, in unloading vessels of coal, the coal had, for the most part, been hoisted from the hold, over the bulwarks, and dumped upon the wharf or upon the coal previously dumped, or, if chutes were used, such chutes were fixed; nor, so far as the patentee was aware, had a movable chute ever been known or used by which the coal could be received from the vessel at any point on the wharf and be screened and delivered to the cart. The patentee further states in his specification: "My invention consists of a portable apparatus for receiving coal from the bucket, by which it is hoisted from the ship, and for screening and delivering it to carts on the wharf, said apparatus being adapted for ready removal from place to place when required."

"By this apparatus I am able to save repeated handlings and consequent expense and the breakage of the coal, and the apparatus can be changed from one point to another where the vessel may be placed."

The invention is shown in the following drawing:

The invention in question consisted substantially of a strong frame (A) surmounted by a hopper (BB'), in the form of a trough, into which the coal is dumped from the hoisting buckets. The coal falls through the hopper upon an inclined screen (D), whose meshes, constructed of horizontal wires, are coarse enough to detain only the larger lumps, which accumulate in a reservoir (O), formed by the screen on one side, and three inclined surfaces on the other. This reservoir is in fact a secondary hopper, at the bottom of which is located a chute (F), and a gate (h) through which the large coal is drawn off as required into the cart or other vehicle. The smaller coal, which passes through the meshes of the screen (D), falls upon a second inclined screen (I), standing transversely to the upper one, whose meshes are finer than the other. The coal is again sifted by this screen into two grades, the coarser of which is discharged down the incline at one side of the machine, while the finer falls through the meshes upon the floor or wharf beneath the frame.

The patentee further added in his specification: "The frame

Statement of the Case.

(AA) will be mounted upon small wheels, so that it can be moved from one place to another upon a wharf, in order to be placed in position to receive the discharging cargo of different ships; but when moving it from one wharf to another, I employ axles across each end of the frame, upon which strong wheels are placed, so that the entire machine can be drawn along similar to any vehicle. . . When it is not desired

to screen the article or substance to be unloaded, a false bottom or metal blank (K), is placed upon the grating or inclined side (D) of the reservoir, so that the substance will be carried directly through the chute into the cart or wagon intended to convey it away."

Plaintiff relied upon an infringement of all the claims of the patent, which read as follows:

"1. A portable combined coal-receiving, screening, and delivering apparatus arranged to receive the coal or other cargo from a swinging suspended tub or bucket, by which it is hoisted from the hold of a ship or other water-craft, and to screen it automatically and deliver it into carts, said apparatus being constructed and arranged substantially as described.

"2. The receiving hopper BB', in combination with the reservoir O, with its screen or grating side D, chute F, with its toothed gate h, and one or more independent screens, I, all combined and arranged substantially as and for the purpose above described.

"3. The metal blank or false bottom K, in combination with the receiving hopper BB', reservoir O, chute F, and gate h, substantially as and for the purpose above described.

"4. The combination or the hopper BB', for receiving the coal from a swinging bucket, the reservoir O, arranged to receive the coal as it passes from the hopper, with the chute F and gate h, all constructed to operate substantially as and for the purpose set forth.

"5. In combination with the elongated hopper, the screen D, reservoir O, and chute F, with its gate h, the combination being substantially as is herein set forth."

The case was tried before a jury, and resulted in a verdict of $8830.90 for the plaintiff, upon which a judgment was subse