Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/105

 THE S. SHaW. 98 �of any patent, in "the machine" used or operated by the defendants. On ail this there is shown a use by the defend- ants of the machine seen and described by Mr. Abbott. Taking the whole bill together, it must be held to a ver a user since the plaintiff's patent was granted, and the proof and the answer must be held to apply to such a case. The proof of user is sufficient without the admission of Mi*. O'Shaughnes- sey, and without reference to the point taken that no admis- sion by him binds Simpson. �As to the point that the bill does not allege an infringement by the defendants jointly, if it does not, the objection should have been taken by demurrer ; if it does, the proof and the answer make out a joint infringement. �There must be the usual decree for the piaintiff as to the fourth claim of the patent. ���The s. Shaw.* �(District Court, E. JD. Pennsyimnia. Janiiary 14, 1881.) �1. Admebaltt— CoixisioN— Anchobotg ni Mid-Ohanxkl akd m Range OF LiGHTS. — A bark proceeding down the Delawai'e river anchored at sundown in mid-channel, and in range of the government lights. A tug foilowing her, with a schooner in tow, did not observe that she was at anchor until too late to prevent a collision by which the bark was injured. Held, that the act of the bark in anchoring where she did tended to produce the collision, and that she was, therefore, in fault. �2.' Bamb — Admission of Liakilitt— From what Cibcumstances Implibd — Agrbemknt to Akisituate. — The testimony lef t it doubtf ul whether the tug should have observed the bark earlier, but it appearing that the owner of the tug had oliored to pay for the cost of repairs to the bark without damages for detention, which offer was ref used, and had then signed an agreeraent to refer to arbitrators " the amount to be paid," which agreement was afterwards abandoned bccauae he claimed the right to call witnesses as to the cause of the collision, hdd, that this amounted to an admission of some fanlt in the tug, and the dam- ages should be, therefore, equally divided betwecn the bark and the tug. �♦Reported by Frank P, Pritehard, Esq., of the Philadelphla bar. ��� �