165

FEDERAL 'REPORTER t

vol. 48.

In

r,'DIDFIRRl

et ai.

--.)

(Oircuit Oourt, S. D. New York.

IMMIGR"'TION-CON.TRAOT LABOR-IUBlllA.S CORPUS TO REV!lllW COMMIssromin's DEOtSION..

. .Onpreliminary iuquil'v by the insp.ection officers, certain immigrants stated that passage was paid (or them, and that they came under an engagement to work OJ) a.taUroad ill. Ohio for 7 francs a day; but on a BUl:!sequent speci!\l inquiry they , .retracted these statements·. Held. that there was competent evidence. tending to .' shoW tha.t they had come in violation of the restriction act, and the court had no jurisdictien to review by, the commissioner's decision ordering thew. to be taken b a c k . ' , .

Application for Writ of II.abeas Corpus· .Th\l relatprs, 36 imrp.igrants, arriving' at the port of New York, were prevented from lan<itng by theactingcommissioner of immigration. Upon their arrival they stated, in response to the inquiries of the inspection officers, that their passage was paid for them, ana that they had been I'lngaged in Italy to work on a railroad in Ohio for a compensation of seven francs a day. Subsequently t upon a special inquiry, they rethese statements. 'rhe commissioner of immigration having dithe master of, 'ship to take theIll back, they obtained a writ of!haoeascorpus to review his action.

.

Oircuit Judge, (orally.) tta;ppears in thisease that upon these the officers.luade th,em toucbmg the CIr.cumstances WhICh, they: pad come to thIS GQ,uof,ry .. In reply to. these questions,Bp.swers were given, which were writing in the form of affida.vits" were to the immian<i were by them sworri ,to.. ' .These statepl'eJits of the immigX:llntS were· certainly competent evidencElfor th,e commissioner of immigratioD, to take into cQnsideratioilin determining whether or not they shoulp be',permitted to land. ThEly wake out a ease which would warthat their transportl\.tion to this .country was paid for rant the of another, and that they came under an agreement, pre,vious to their to PElrform labodri the United States. a special inquiry into ,was conducted by the commissioner of immigration, and the testimon, taken on that inquiry contradicts their statements upon preliminary examination. In this respect these cases differ from that of In re Feinknopj, 47 Fed. Rep. 447, in which Judge BENEDICT filed the opinion referred to on the argument. In that case there was no evidence whatever, either in the preliminary examination or the special inquiry, tending to show that the immigrant was within one of the prohibited classes. Here, however, there is evidence which, standing alone, would fairly warrant the conclusion that these immigrants have come here in violation of the statute. That being so, it is not the part of the court to look any further to see if there is any additional evidence contradicting that) and to weigh all

RICKS 11. CRAIG.

169

the testimony in the case. Appellate tribunals have been created by the immigration law to correct any errors of the commissioner of immigration in cases where there is conflicting testimony. Where there is some competent evidence before the commissioner sustaining his ruling, this court will not interfere because there was also before him contradictory testimony, which he apparently disbelieved. The writ is dismissed.

RICKS, Jr., et al.

(Circuit

'V. CRAIG

et

aZ.

Oourt, D. MaBBachU8ettB. November 6,1891.)

PATENTS FOR INVENTIONB-INFRINGEJlENT-PRIOR STATE OF AR'l'-ENGINE LUBRICAT-

Letters patent No. 214,589, issued' April 22, 1879, to Nicbolas Seibert, were for a Dew and improved feed indicllotor and reducing plugattacbments for oil-cups, used for oiling the steam-chest and cylinder of engines, so as to produce a uniform of oil. The specifications show tbat the discharge pipe of the oil-cup is connectilll directly with the that, owing to the \'arying pressure in the cheat, due te the opening and of. ports, tbe backward pressure of the steam the oil-cup would vary, and thus cause an unequal fiowofoil, and that the inventi6il is designed to equalize this pressure bY inserting in the discharge pipe, between the cup and the chest, a plug wittl an opening so small that steam could not through rapidly enough to communicate the rapid changes In the chest. Cla1in'2 . is for "the reducing plug, constructed and operated as and for the purposes described.". HeW. that, in vi!lw of the prior state of the art, this claim mustbe restricted to the purpose described, and it is not infringed by the patent of April 20, 1886, to William H. Craig, in whioh thE: pressure is made uniform by an "equalizing pipe," opening inte the discharge pipe and connecting with the steam-pipe at a point w.here the pressure is constant, and also baving an obstTUction in the discharlie pip.e, with a small·opening, fitted with a spindle valve, since it appears that thls latter device was for the purpose ot maintaining an equal pressure as a2'ainstth.e sucti{)n produced by shutting off the steam from the steam-chest when the locOmotive was running down grade. '

ORS.

In Equity Bill for infringement of patent. Thoma8 Wm. Clarke and Edmund Wetmore, for complainants. William K. Richardson and F. P. Fish, for defendants.
COLT, J. The bill in this case charges the defendants with infringement of the second claim of letters patent No. 214,589, granted to Nicholas Seibert, April 22,1879, for a new and improved feed-indicator and reducing-plug attachment for oil-cups. This class of lubricators is used upon steam-engines. Two things seem to be necessnry to make a good lubricator,-the feed of the oil must be regular, and there must be an observation chamber, so that the engineer may see the quantity and regularity of the feed. The lubricator is generally fed by hydrostatic pressure. In the ordinary fonn of construction there is a pipe leading from the boiler or steam-pipe to a condensing chamber, where the steam is condensed into water. This chamber is connected at the bottom with the bottom of an oil reservoir. As the column ·of water is higher than the oil; the water passing into the oil receptacle will displace an equal