Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/659

 PETeR80N », THE CHANÎDOS. 645 �— ' . ..' ^ ' ■ ■ ■ ' . ■ ■ ' ?' �silown. Th^, stopper in Codd No. 2 has )io stem or rod, no' knob projecting beyond the mouth of the bpttle wbea the sphere is at its ejosing place, no elastio yielding or compress* ible valve on the stopper. It is true that the stopper in Codd No. 2 is of a greater specifiô gravity than the liquid, so that it will fall into the seat by gravity when the bottleis inverted, and then be held there by the pressure of gas in the liquid. But this is not enough to make an infringement of the first olaim. The construction bf the stopper in Codd No, 2 is so essentially different in thp particulars above pointed out from that of the plaintifif's stopper, eo far as such construction is involved in the first claim, that it cannot be held to infringe that claim. The second clAÎm is not infringed because in Codd No. 2 there is no valve, C, on the stem, and no valve capable of being forced through the mouth of the bottle from without it. The third claim is not in question. ' The bill is dismissed. with costs. ���Petebson V. Thb Chandoe and Masteb. �(District Court, D. Oregoi^i. November 9, 1880.) �L Crane LmE. — The primary purpose of a crane line is to steady the backstays, and in blustery weàther it is very apt to chafe and wear out where it is fastened to the stays; and, therefore, it oUglit not to be used as a foot-rope without caution, and the aid of the stays. �2. Bamb. — The weather being wet and the night dask, and the wind strong, the libellant was ordered to go aloft and cast ofl the stop on the foretop-gallant halliards, which he did by going up the rigging and out on the crane line to the space between the topmast and top- gallant stay, and there untying the stop with both hands while he sat upon the crans line, without any other hold or security, and, just as the stop was cast ofE, the line parted near the top-gallant stay, and the libellant was precipitated to the deck and seriously injured. �Hdd, that the injury was caused by the negligence of the libellant In going on the crane line without an opportunity of examlning ita condition, and without holding to the stays by his arms or legs, or both, while casting ofiE the stop ; and that if, by reason of the negli- gence or misconduct of the mate, the crane line was insufficient, still the libellant could not recover damages for the injury, because even then hla own negligence substantially contributed to the resuit. ����