The United States v. Burley.

plicant, that he had never known the defendant. This evidence, coupled with the evidence as to the circumstances under which the oath was made, and the absence of any evidence tending to show previous acquaintance, was sufficient to warrant the verdict.

THE UNITED STATES 28. WILLIAM BURLEY.

B. registered as a voter, on the production of a certificate of his naturalization, which had been issued by a State Court without his presence in Court, and without any oath having been taken by him. The certificate was regular on its face. On an indictment against B., under § 5426 of the Revised Statutes, for using, for the purpose of registering as a voter, a naturalization certificate, knowing the same to have been unlawfully issued: Held, that the mere fact that B. knew that the certificate had been issued without his presence in Court, and without any oath being taken by him, was not sufficient to warrant a conviction.

(Before BENEDICT, J., Southern District of New York, January 12th, 1877.)

THIS was an indictment, under § 5426 of the Revised Statutes, for using, for the purpose of registering as a voter, a naturalization certificate, knowing the same to have been unlawfully issued. The evidence showed that the defendant had registered as a voter, upon the production of a certificate of his naturalization, which certificate had been issued by a State Court without the presence of the applicant in Court, and without any oath having been taken by him. The certificate was, in all respects, regular upon its face.

THE COURT held, that the mere fact that the defendant knew that the certificate had been issued without his presence in Court, and without any oath being taken by him, was not sufficient to warrant a conviction.

Benjamin B. Foster, (Assistant District Attorney,) for the United States.

John L. Hill, for the defendant.

The United States v. Anthony.

THE UNITED STATES vs. JAMES ANTHONY.

An indictment, under § 3296 of the Revised Statutes, which charges a removal of a certain quantity of "distilled spirits" on which the tax had not been paid, to a place other than the distillery warehouse, is good.

(Before BENEDICT, J., Southern District of New York, January 15th, 1877.)

THIS was an indictment, under § 3296 of the Revised Statutes, and charged a removal of a certain quantity of "distilled spirits," on which the tax had not been paid, to a place other than the distillery warehouse. The defendant demurred to the indictment, on the ground that it did not charge any offence.

Roger M. Sherman, (Assistant District Attorney,) for the United States.

Thomas Harland, for the defendant.

BENEDICT, J. While, in a strictly chemical sense, the terms " ethyl alcohol" and "spirits of wine spirits of wine" are generic terms, and the term "distilled spirits," as defined by § 3248, when used in that sense, would be generic, and not necessarily confined to the product of distillation, still, the term "distilled spirits" has also an ordinary and literal meaning, which implies distillation, and, when it is used in the latter sense, it is confined to the product of distillation. It is so used in § 3296 and in this indictment. Consequently, the indictment shows the subject-matter to be subject to tax, under § 3254, and is good.

The United States v. Miller.

THE UNITED STATES 28. CHARLES N. MILLER.

Spirits consigned to M. arrived, and he was notified, by the carrier, of their arrival. He surrendered his bill of lading, paid the freight, sold the spirits to a third party, and gave such party an order to receive the spirits, on which such party, the next day, received the spirits, and removed the same to his own premises. M. was indicted, under § 3318 of the Revised Statutes, for omitting to enter the spirits in his book, at the time of sending them out of his stock and possession: Held, that such removal of the spirits was a removal from the stock and possession of the defendant, within the meaning of § 3318.

(Before BENEDICT, J., Southern District of New York, January 17th, 1877.)

THIS was an indictment, under § 3318 of the Revised Statutes, against a wholesale liquor dealer, for omitting to enter certain spirits in his book, at the time of sending them out of his stock and possession. Certain spirits consigned to the defendant, from the West, arrived in New York on March 15th, and notice of their arrival was given to the defendant by the carrier. Thereupon the defendant surrendered his bill of lading, paid the freight, and sold the spirits to a third party, sending the purchaser an order for their delivery to him. On the next day the purchaser presented the order, and received the spirits into his possession, and removed the same to his own premises.

Roger M. Sherman, (Assistant District Attorney,) for the United States.

Treadwell Cleveland, for the defendant.

THE COURT held that the removal of the spirits, under the circumstances stated, was a removal from the stock and possession of the defendant, within the meaning of § 3318.

The United States Rifle and Cartridge Co. v. The Whitney Arms Co.

THE UNITED STATES RIFLE AND CARTRIDGE COMPANY AND E. REMINGTON & SONS

vs.

THE WHITNEY ARMS COMPANY AND OTHERS. IN EQUITY.

C. applied for a patent in January, 1859. The application was rejected in February, 1859. No appeal was taken. In February, 1860, the application was withdrawn, and the balance of the fee was refunded. In May, 1868, C. filed a new application, which was rejected on the ground of abandonment. This decision was affirmed by the Commissioner of Patents, and his decision was reversed by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. The Commissioner then declined to issue the patent. After the passage of the Patent Act of July 8th, 1870, (16 U. S. Stat. at Large, 198,) a new application was filed, and the patent was issued, it being for "improvements in breech loading guns." During the 8 years from 1860 to 1868, C. obtained 22 patents on his own application, 9 of them relating to breech-loading fire-arms, and though, during a part of the time, he was poor, and in debt, and in ill health, he prosecuted his other inventions with energy. During the same interval patents were granted to others embodying his inventions: Held, that, under § 35 of said Act of 1870, which provides that, upon the hearing of the renewal, provided for by that section, of an application before rejected or withdrawn, "abandonment shall be considered as a question of fact," the decision of the Commissioner on the question of abandonment is not final, reviewed in a suit brought on the patent;

That no laches could be imputed to C. after May, 1868;

That his invention was abandoned before May, 1868.

but may be

The use of an invention for mere competitive examination, experiment and test, is not a public use.

(Before SHIPMAN, J., Connecticut, January 22d, 1877.)

SHIPMAN, J. This is a bill in equity, to restrain the defendants from an alleged infringement of letters patent granted to John W. Cochran, on May 7th, 1872, for "improvements in breech-loading guns." The plaintiffs are the owners of the patent, and E. Remington & Sons, for whose benefit the suit is brought, are the exclusive licensees thereunder. The answer of the defendants denies infringement

The United States Rifle and Cartridge Co. v. The Whitney Arms Co.

upon their part, and also denies novelty of invention upon the part of the patentee, and alleges that the application of the said Cochran for a patent was filed on May 6th, 1868, and that, for more than two years prior to said date, the invention had been in public use and sale, with the consent and allowance of said Cochran, and that, prior to the said date, the invention had been abandoned to the public.

Mr. Cochran's application for a patent was made on the 11th of January, 1859, and was rejected February 8th, 1859. No appeal was taken from the original rejection by the primary examiner, and, on February 20th, 1860, the application was withdrawn, and twenty dollars, the balance of the Patent Office fee, was refunded to the applicant. On May 6th, 1868, Mr. Cochran filed a new application, which was rejected upon the ground of abandonment. The decision of the board of examiners was affirmed by Mr. Fisher, who was then Commissioner, whose decision was reversed by the Supreme Court for the District of Columbia. The Commissioner then declined to issue the patent, but, after the passage of the Patent Act of July 8th, 1870, (16 U. S. Stat. at Large, 198,) a new application was filed, and the patent was issued by the successor of Mr. Fisher. During the interval of eight years between the first rejection and the second application, Cochran obtained twenty-two different patents upon his own application, nine of which patents relate especially to breech-loading firearms. He was constantly occupied after 1859, and especially during the war of the rebellion, in endeavors to perfect and to bring to the favorable notice of the War Department and of the public, his inventions other than the one which is now in controversy. He sold, in the year 1865, an English patent for another breech-loading fire-arm, for the sum of $18,000, (of which sum $5,000 was spent in making models and procuring foreign patents,) and went to England, on two occasions, for the purpose of introducing that weapon to the foreign market. He was, during a portion of this interval, very poor, in debt, and in ill health, and his habits were irregular, but he was prosecuting his other inventions with con