LOCKWOOD v. CLEVELAND. 37
27 Pa. St. 479; Doe v. Litherberry, 4 McLean, 442; Lathrop v. Stuart,
5 McLean, 167; Grri_qnon’s Lessee v. Astor, 2 How. 339; Thompson. v.
Tolmie, 2 Pet. 165.
4. It is finally claimed that the p1·isoner is illegally held, because
not confined under any proper warrant or mittimue. This is clearly
unnecessary. The person having custody of the prisoner is bound to
show his authority, and the order or sentence of a court of record is
suliicient. Hurd, Habeas Corpus, bk. 2, § 8; People v. Nevins, 1
Hill, 154; State v. Heathmau, Wright, 691. This point was also
ruled by the late Judge Louormn in the unreported case of In re
Osterhaus. · ,
The application must be denied. s
See U. S. v. Field, 16   REP. .778, and note, 779; U. S. v. Petit, 11 FED.
REP. 58, and note, 60.
Locxwoon v. Cnnvnmun and others.
(Oircuit Uowrt, D. New Jersey. September 25, 1883;)
Pumms ron INVENTIONS—·INDIA—RUBBEB EBASEBS—LOOKWOOD mn Homsou
Parnms, Nos.- 167,445 AND 233,511.
As, upon examination of the evidence of priority in this case, it appears that
Rhodes Lockwood was the original and nrst inventor or discoverer of the im-
provement in India-rubber erasers, as described in patent No. 167 ,445, granted
to him September 7, 1875, and that Francis Henry Holton was also the origi-
nal, but not the first, inventor or discoverer of such improvement, and that
 aid Holton was guilty of laches in not tiling his application for patent until
two years after the invention had been in public use and on sale, patent No.
167,445 is sustained, and the Holton patent, No. 233,511, issued to Orestes
Cleveland, as assignee, October 19, 1880, declared void.
On Bill, etc.
Browne <‘5· Witter, for complainant.
Bedle, Muirheid Er M cGee, for defendants.
Nixon, ]. On the twenty-fourth day of june, 1875, Rhodes Lock-
wood made application for letters patent of the United States for "im·
provement in India-rubber erase:s," and on the seventh of Septem- ,
ber following letters patent N 0. 167 ,445 were duly issued to him. Cn
the ninth of June, 1877, Francis Henry Holton, assignor to Orestes
Cleveland, also tiled his application for letters patent for the same
invention. The commissioner of patents declared an interference, and
on November 5, 1878, gave notice to the parties interested, as required r
by section 4904 of the Revised Statutes, and directed the primary exam-
iner to determine the question of the priority of the invention. Testi- · ,
nony was duly taken, and on December 12, 1879, the examiner
tdjudged Holton to be the first inventor of the improvement. On an
appeal, the board of examiners in chief reversed the decision of the