intended to equalize the pressure in a series of fermenting vessels by means of pipes connecting such vessels with a common receptacle or gas holder, from which the gas was to escape when it reached a certain pressure; the main contention being that in both the Sturm and Andrews apparatus the connecting pipes extended into the liquid, and hence did not tap the gas chambers only of the fermenting vessels. Whether the pipes leading from the fermenting tubs into the common receptacle or pipe whereby the pressure was to be regulated in the Sturm apparatus and in the Andrews apparatus reached below the gas space into the liquid or not, may be said to be somewhat a matter of doubt from all the proof in the case, although I incline to the conclusion that the weight of testimony is in favor of defendant on this point; but that those devices equalized the pressure in the vessels thereby connected can admit, I think, of no doubt. So that from this testimony alone we have the fact established that it was old to regulate and equalize the pressure in a series of hogsheads or other vessels containing fermenting liquids, long before the Pfaudler invention is claimed to have been made.

The testimony shows that in October 1868, a patent was granted to F. M. Horning for a device for equalizing the pressure of steam in a battery of steam-boilers in which the steam from each boiler was led by a pipe into a common chest or receptacle, from which the steam was taken for the purpose of working, thereby securing a uniform pressure in each boiler; and the testimony of Henry Jones, a witness called in behalf of defendant, shows (if such fact were not a matter of common knowledge) that as early as 1858 he knew of the use of a device, similar in its mode of operation and result to that shown in the Horning patent, for equalizing the pressure of steam in a battery of steam-boilers by pipes leading 'from the steam space at the top of each boiler into a common chest or receptacle from which the steam was led to the cylinders for the purpose of working. This Horning apparatus, and the steam equalizing apparatus described in Jones' testimony, show devices in their mode of operation and result precisely like that which is claimed to be covered by Pfaudler's patent, only that instead of equalizing the pressure of gas evolved in the process of fermentation those devices equalized the pressure of steam evolved from water by heat. There is no difference in principle or mode of operation between them, and I think it cannot admit of a doubt that the Pfaudler device, when stripped of a multiplicity of apparently unnecessary cocks and pipes and pressure gauges, is nothing but the apparatus which has been used for many years to equalize the pressure of steam in steam-boilers. It did not require invention, as it seems to me, but only common mechanical skill, to apply the wellknown device for equalizing the pressure of steam in a battery of steamboilers to the equalizing of the pressure of gas evolved by fermentation in a series of fermenting casks, whenever it was found to be useful to equalize the pressure in the fermenting vessels at any stage in the manufacture of beer or wine.

This patent is, in no sense, a process patent, and has nothing to do, and purports upon its face to have nothing to do, with the manufacture

of beer at any particular stage in its process of termentation, or manufacture. It is simply a patent for an apparatus, and as applicable to other fermenting liquids as it is to beer; and, as I have already intimated, equally applicable to beer in the process of fermentation, where it is not desirable that the contents of the fermenting vessels shall be kept as nearly as possible at rest; but, on the contrary, where agitation is desired for the purpose of increasing fermentation; for I repeat what I have already said, that I do not think that merely because Pfaudler says in a disclaimer that he does not intend to describe an apparatus constructed and operating like that described in the English patent to Yonil of September, 1854, he necessarily intended that the fermenting vessels in his apparatus must, under all conditions and purposes of use, have a gas space above the liquid, and that his connecting pipes could only extend into this gas space, and not below it, into the fermenting liquid.

My views upon this question of novelty make it unnecessary that I should discuss or consider the question also made by defendant as to the validity of this reissue by reasons of the claims in the reissue differing from, and, as it is insisted, being expanded from, that of the original patent. I am, therefore, of opinion that the defense of want of novelty is fully sustained, and that this bill should be dismissed for want of equity.

CASEY V. BUTTERFIELD.

(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. May 11, 1888.)

1. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-CAR COUPLINGS.

The first claim of letters patent No. 326,401, of September 15, 1885, to Frederick A. Casey for a car coupling is: "A draw-head having the hook pivoted to the plates below the line of draw, and keyed to said plates above said pivot, whereby, as the key is removed from contact with the hook, the hook swings down out of contact with the hook of the adjoining car, etc. Held infringed by letters patent No. 327,066, of September 29, 1885, to Finley R. Butterfield; the device embodied therein having a draw-head with a hook pivoted below the line of draw, and hooked or latched to the plates above the pivot, and the latch or hook being the equivalent of the Casey key. 2. SAME-PRIOR INVENTION.

In support of the defense of prior invention by himself, defendant produced a model of a car coupling having the hook pivoted below the line of draw which he claimed to have made in the spring of 1881, prior to the patent in suit, viz., No. 326,401, of September 15, 1885, to Frederick A. Casey, for a car coupling. Three other witnesses, one of whom was defendant's wife, swore that they saw the model about that time, but the testimony of two of them as to the identity of the model was not entirely clear. It was shown in rebuttal by defendant's patent solicitor that defendant first came to him in June, 1885, for the purpose of procuring a patent for a car coupling, and that he then produced a crude wooden model, and that the pivot in that, which connected the hook to the draw-bar, was not below the line of draw. This patent does not seem to have been granted. The next application to the solicitor was made in July, and defendant then produced no model. Held, that the evidence showed no anticipation; the invention, supposing it to have been made, having been abandoned.

་

3. SAME-ANTICIPATION.

Nor is the Casey patent anticipated by the Snedaker and Thurber patents; those patents having a pivoted device where the link is pivoted below the line of draw, and such devices relating to linked couplings, which are substantially different in construction and mode of operation from the coupling hooks of the Casey device.

In Equity. Bill by the patentee for infringement of letters patent No. 326,401, of September 15, 1885, to Frederick A. Casey, against Finley R. Butterfield, the patentee in letters patent No. 326,066, of September 29, 1885.

W. A. Macleod, for complainant.

C. C. Morgan, for respondent.

COLT, J. The bill in this case alleges infringement of letters patent No. 326,401, granted to the complainant, September 15, 1885. The invention has for its essential feature the construction of a draw-head, the hook of which is pivoted to the shank or body of the head below the line of draw, so that, when desired, it may be dropped or swung down out of the line of draw, thus freeing it from the hook of the adjoining cars with which it is in contact. The first claim of the patent, which is the only one in controversy, is as follows:

"A draw-head having the hook pivoted to the plates below the line of draw, and keyed to said plates above said pivot, whereby, as the key is removed from contact with the hook, the hook swings down out of contact with the hook of the adjoining car, substantially as shown and described."

The defenses urged are: (1) Anticipation; (2) no infringement; (3) prior invention by the defendant.

As to the defense of anticipation I agree with the complainant's expert that none of the prior patents introduced in evidence show a coupling having a coupling hook pivoted to the draw-bar below the line of draw, so that the engaging shoulder of the hook moves forward and downward when the hook-piece turns on its pivot, and a movable fastening device or key that connects the hook-piece with the draw-bar above the pivot when the hook-piece is in position to be coupled with the other member of the coupling. The Snedaker and Thurber patents have a pivoted device where the link is pivoted below the line of draw, but these devices relate to linked couplings which, it seems to me, are substantially different in construction and mode of operation from the coupling hooks of complainant's device..

Upon the question of infringement I find that defendant's device has a draw-head having a hook pivoted below the line of draw, and hooked or latched to the plates above the pivot. What the defendant terms a latch or hook is plainly the equivalent of the Casey key. The defense of non-infringement is not made out.

A more serious question relates to the alleged prior invention by the defendant. The defendant exhibits a model of a car coupling having the hook pivoted below the line of draw, which he says he made in the spring of 1881, or prior to the date of complainant's invention. He

calls his wife and two other witnesses, who swear that they saw the model about this time. From the appearance of the model it is not certain whether it may not have been somewhat changed since it was first constructed. Ferrin, the first witness for defendant on this point, says he cannot remember the exact location of the pin relatively to the head in the model he saw, because at the time he did not examine the pin. Mrs. Wheeler, the second witness, says that as near as she can remember the model produced in evidence was the same model she saw in defendant's house. On the other hand, the plaintiff calls as a witness James B. Thurston, the defendant's solicitor, who testifies in substance that in June, 1885, the defendant employed him to procure a patent for a car coupling, and that he produced at the time a crude wooden model. In this model the pivot which connected the hook to the drawbar was not below the line of draw. Application was made for this patent, but he does not think it was granted. Subsequently Thurston made another application for the defendant for a second patent,-No. 327,066, -which embodies the infringing device now made by defendant. this time the defendant did not produce any wooden model such as he now exhibits. Upon this condition of the evidence I am satisfied that the defendant has not made a case of prior invention with that certainty which the law requires to invalidate a patent. But if we should assume the existence of this model as early as 1881, it seems to me that all the circumstances go to show that it was a case of an abandoned experiment. Upon the whole, I think the complainant is entitled to a decree. Decree for complainant.

At

THE BESSIE WHITING.'

WILSON V. THE BESSIE WHITING.

(District Court, E. D. New York. April 25, 1888.)

SALVAGE FROM FIRE-SPEEDINESS OF SERVICE-COMPARISON WITH OTHER AWARD.

The schooner W. was lying at a wharf in Williamsburgh when fire broke out in oil-works in the vicinity. The mate of the schooner applied for assistance to a tug, which went first to the aid of the schooner J., lying near by, and afterwards returned and took the W. into the stream. This court heretofore awarded the tug $200 for her services to the J. 30 Fed. Rep. 204. The value of the W. was less than that of the J. The latter had a cargo of oil on board, which increased her peril. The time devoted by the tug to the W. was scarcely one-fourth as much as that given to the J., and the service was rendered less speedily in this case, and after the danger had somewhat decreased. Held, that $25 was a proper award for the service rendered the W.

In Admiralty.

Alexander & Ash, for libelant.

'Reported by Edward G, Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.

Wing, Shoudy & Putnam, for claimants.

BENEDICT, J. This is an action to recover salvage compensation for services rendered the schooner Bessie Whiting, on the 21st day of December, 1884. On the morning of that day a serious fire broke out at Pratt's Oil-Works, Williamsburgh, in which several oil-tanks exploded, and burning oil was scattered over the adjacent waters. At this time the schooner Bessie Whiting lay fast to the south side of the pier at the foot of North Eleventh street. She was in charge of her mate, and the lines by which she was fast to the pier were stiff and frozen. The fire involved danger to the shipping in that locality, and all vessels in the neighborhood set signals for assistance to get into the stream. The steam-tug John H. Wilson, Jr., owned by the libelant, was applied to by the mate of the schooner Bessie Whiting, to tow the schooner away from the pier. The tug went first to the assistance of the Jeanie, then fast to the opposite pier. After towing the Jeanie to a place of safety, the tug returned to the Bessie Whiting, and at the request of the mate two of the tug's crew went on board and cast off her lines from the pier, for which service the mate agreed to give the men five dollars each. The tug took her out into the stream, and left her at anchor. The service involved no risk to the tug, no extraordinary exertion, and occupied but a short time. For the services rendered by this tug to the Jeanie on the occasion in question this court gave $200 as a salvage compensation, (30 Fed. Rep. 204,) and the libelant here insists that the like sum would be proper compensation for the services rendered to the Bessie Whiting. The claimant, on the other hand, considers that $25 would be enough. The difference between this case and the case of the Jeanie is considerable. The value of the property saved in this case was less than in the case of the Jeanie. The Jeanie had a cargo of oil on board, which increased her peril. The time devoted to the Bessie Whiting was scarcely one-fourth as much as that devoted to the Jeanie. The service rendered to the Jeanie was rendered promptly. The service rendered to the Bessie Whiting was not so promptly rendered, the tug having thought wise to relieve the Jeanie before going to the Bessie Whiting. When she returned to the Bessie Whiting the apprehension of danger from the fire had decreased, still the situation was such as to justify the mate in desiring to be towed out. I think $25 will be a proper compensation to be paid for the services in the libel mentioned. Let the libelant have a decree for $25 and costs.