(1.) Metropolitan Washing Machine Co. -Clothes-wringer.

30. The first claim of the reissued letters patent, division A, granted to the Metropolitan Washing Machine Company, January 7th, 1873, for an "improvement in clothes wringers," (the original letters patent having been granted on the invention of Alby H. Page, January 29th, 1867,) namely: "In a wringer having a pair of squeezing rollers, and an operating crank, and two uprights or standards, the employment of clamping means arranged to take hold of the tub at or near the base of each standard," is limited to a combination in which a swivel, or its equivalent, is employed as one of the parts of a clamping device, and must be read with reference to the specification, and as though the words "substantially as described," were inserted. Metropolitan Wringing Co. v. Young, 46

(2.) Lippmann-Corset-clasp.

31. The claim of letters patent granted to Phillipp Lippmann, September 30th, 1873, for "a corset clasp and cloth attachment," namely, "As a new article of manufacture, a covered corset clasp, the cloth of which forms

34. Therefore, a machine in which the swaging is produced by dies of a construction radically different from the dies of the patent, does not infringe the patent. id.

(4.) Severance-Rock drill.

35. The invention set forth in reissued letters patent No. 3,690, granted to Asabel J. Severance, assignee of Rudolph Leschot, October 26th, 1869, for an 66 'improved rock drill," the original letters patent having been issued to said Leschot, July 14th, 1863, defined. American Boring Co. v. Sullivan Machine Co.,

119

been issued to sail Swan June 9th,
1868,) are valid. Bruff v. Ives, 198

44. The invention defined and the
claims of the patent construed. id.

(8.) Miller & Co.-Lamp.

45. The second claim of the reissued
letters patent granted to E. Miller &
Co., as assignees of Joshua E. Am-
brose, January 11th, 1876, for an
"improvement in lamps," (the origi-
nal patent having been granted Oc-
tober 16th, 1860, and reissued May
20th, 1873, and, as so reissued, ex-
tended for 7 years from October 16th,
1874,) namely, "The combination, in
a lamp burner, of the following ele-
ments: first, a deflector; second, a
perforated air distributor, which,
with the deflector, forms the combus-
tion chamber; third, a wick tube,
extending from the fount to the com-
bustion chamber; fourth, a tube or
passage to conduct the gas from the
fount to said combustion chamber,
substantially as described," is for a
different invention from any which
was described and claimed in the
original patent, and is invalid. Mil-
ler v. Bridgeport Brass Co.,

46.

282

The combination contained in said
second claim contains a lesser num-
ber of ingredients than the combina-
tion which composed the original in-
vention, and the specification of the
original patent did not suggest that a
lamp containing the modified combi-
nation of the second claim of the re-
issued patent was feasible and within
the scope of the invention, and, there-
fore, under the rule laid down in Gill
v. Wells, (22 Wall., 1,) said second
claim is void.
id.

fan G, and the spout I, with the mealchest D, receiving the meal from the grinding stones, and provided with a conveyor shaft F, and elevator F', substantially as and for the purpose set forth," is not subject to the objection that it is for a different invention from that for which the original patent was issued, although the original patent claimed only a combination which embraced the elements composing the combination claimed in said first claim with other elements. Herring v. Nelson, 293

bacco.

49. The letters patent granted to Isaac Eppinger, June 17th, 1873, for an improvement in plug and bunch tobacco,' are valid. Eppinger v. Richey, 307

50. The claim of said patent, namely, "Plug or bunch tobacco made as herein described, the same consisting of a rope or strand, composed of a sweetened or prepared filler, inclosed in a binder, in turn enveloped in a wrapper, the said rope being coiled around a central core, forming a con tinuous part of the rope, and the bunch thus made being subjected to a pressure, as and for the purposes set forth," claims a patentable invention. id.

fastener," (the original patent having been granted to said Voll and McGregor, as inventors, March 30th, 1869,) namely, "A vibrating lever, provided with a bolt, in combination with a striking plate or hook, and with a catch segment behind which the bolt can pass, formed upon the plate upon which the lever is pivoted, the whole constituting a sashfastener, and the parts enumerated in the claim being and operating substantially as specified," does not in clude a vertically moving bolt in combination with a socket upon the base-plate. Hopkins M'f'g Co. v. Corbin,

396

54. The first claim of said patent, namely, "Constructing the tempering die with a square hole, corresponding in size to the wire to be tempered, in order that the wire may be straightened in all directions, and the flattened portions of the wire be brought in line with each other, as and for the purposes specified," is infringed by the use, for the tempering of umbrella ribs of U-shaped wire, with wider flattened parts in them, of a die formed of two plates, one above and one below, with the groove in one plate shallow and semielliptical, to accommodate one edge of the flattened parts of the rib, and with the groove in the other plate broader and deeper, and, in its crosssection, the shape of the body of the wire, with a channel opposite to and like the groove in the other plate, to accommodate the other edge of the flattened part of the rib. id.

55. The prior existence of a square hole or groove for the purpose of drawing through it square bars or strips of metal, to compress them and straighten them, does not anticipate the invention claimed in said first claim. id.

On a complaint before O., a United
States Commissioner in New York,
against S., for having committed an
offence against the United States,
cognizable by the Courts of the Dis-
trict of Columbia, S. was committed
by O. to await the issuing by the
District Judge of a warrant for his
removal for trial to such District.
Before such warrant was issued, V.
went before O., to justify as bail for
S., and made oath before him to a
deposition concerning his property,
which was signed by him and en-
titled in the proceeding against S.
Afterwards S. was released by the
District Judge on bail, on a bail
bond signed by V. It did not ap-
pear that the deposition of V. was
exhibited to the District Judge, or
that any further steps were taken be-
fore O. after the deposition was
made. V., having been indicted for,
and convicted of. perjury, in making,
in such deposition, statements of ma
terial matter, which he did not be-
lieve to be true, moved for a new
trial, on the ground that the deposi-
tion was not made in a case "in
which a law of the United States au-
thorizes an oath to be administered,"
within 5392 of the Revised Stat-
utes: Held, that the motion must be
denied. United States v. Volz,

15

63. The Victor plane, covered by let-
ters patent gran ed to Leonard Bai-
ley, December 12th, 1876, is an in-