30 FEDERAL REPORTER.
received Hayes' vote knowing that he was not a resident of, or reg-
istered in, the voting precinct. This certainly was a violation of one
of the plainest duties of an oihcer of elections.
Motion in arrest of judgment overruled.
Wasrnnrz Umon TEL. Co. v. Bnrinoam & O. Tan. Co.
(Circuit Oourt, S. D. New York. 1885.)
1. Pnmurs Fon INVENTIONB—REISSUE——ENLARGING Cr.arms-lllrs1·Axin—DrLr-
canon.
A patent cannot be lawfully reissued for the mere purpose of enlarging a
claim, unless there has been a clear mistake, inadvertently committed in the
wording of the claim, and the application for reissue is made within a reason-
able time.
2. Baum-Qossrron ron Conmssiomm or- PATENTS—REASON.kBLE `1`IME,QUES-
rron ron Comm.
Whether there has been such an inadvertent mistake is, in general, a matter
of fact for the commissioner to decide; but whether the application is made in
reasonable time is matter of law which the court may determine by comparing
the reissued patents with the original and, if necessary, with the records iu the
patent-otlice when presented for record.
3. SAME——WHAT IB Raasoiunnn Turn.
What is a reasonable time will depend upon the circumstances in each case,
but as the patentee is charged with notice of what his patent. contains, the
court will hold him to reasonable diligence.
4. Benn-Prtinrurnanv Rm.im·—Dooar as ro Vamnrrr or Rntssua.
Where a reissue is obtained, not to correct a mistake, but to secure broad
claims that will ostensibly cover more comprehensive rights than belong to
the patentee,a preliminary injunction will not he granted to restrain infringe-
ment.of a good claim, if the defendant has acted in the honest belief that the
reissue was wholly void. ‘
Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
" Edu:. N. Dickerson, Sami. A. Duncan, and O. L. Buckingham, for
complainants.
Frederic H. Betts, Grosvenor P. Lowrey, and J. E. H. Hyde, for
defendants.
Wsnnson, J. The complainant moves for a preliminary injunc-
tion to restrain defendant from infringing the second claim of reis-
sued· letters patent No. 10,035, division C, granted to Joseph B.
Stearns, assignor to complainant, for "duplex telegraph apparatus."
The motion is resisted upon the ground that there was no patentable
novelty in the alleged invention, and that the reissue is void because
it includes that part ofthe invention which had been abandoned to
the public by the delay on the part of the patentee in applying for a
reissue. The original patent was granted to Stearns, May 14, 1872;
it was reissued April 1, 1873, (No. 5,344,) and was again reissued in
divisions A, B, and C, February 7, 1882.
No doubt whatever is entertained that Stearns was the first and