RAILWAY REGISTERiiMANUF’G co. v. rman AVE. mr. co. 31
himself. This view of the law is tiirther strengthened by a reference to
the rule ofthe Southern district, which provides that f‘in all cases in
which persons convicted of _ offenses against the statutes of the United
States shall be sentencedltoi imprisonment, and the sentence shall not
also specify that the party ,be kept athard labor, it shall be the duty of
the marshal to cause such partyjco benimprisoned in any one of the pris-
ons within the city andtcounty of New York which he may select for
that_purpose." 4 Blatchi`. 541. .
If the court has the power to make such an order before sentence, why
mayit not exercise the same right afterwards? If the place of impris-
onment may thus be Pixed by an order of the court when the presence of
this prisoner is impossible_, it follows that the order is not an essential
part of the judgment, and his presence is not necessary when it is made
afterthe sentence is pronounced. See De Puy’s Case, 3 Ben. 307 , 322 ;
· Weed v. Pewlc, 31 _·N4 Y. 465. . V a · V
. A case exactly in point has not been cited by counsel, or found by
the court, and, in the absence of controlling authority, the court should
hesitate to release the prisoner upona ground purely technical in charac-
ter, and involving, it would seem, no substantial right. If she had been
brought back by themarshal from Auburn to Brooklyn, neither she nor
her counsel would have been consulted, and t_he court was under no ob-
ligation to consult them, regarding the order which changed the place of
imprisonment. .  
t It follows that the discharge must be refused. ,
Rnrnwer Rmersrnn MANnr’e Co. v. Tnmn Avn. RY. Co. and others.
(Circuit Oaurt, S. D. New York. October 15, 1887.)
Pxrnnrs ron Invnrxrrons-F,inn Rmersrnns-Lmrrarron or C1.Am—Im·mNen-
nmnr.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 of letters patent No. 206,565, of July 80, 1878, to Charles
B. Harris, for an " improvement in fare registers. " must. by reason of the lim-
itation of the boundaries of the invention in the description and in view of
· the prior state of the art as indicatedby the Morgan-Brown British patent of
August 15, 1877, (which sets forth three talian fare registers and modincations
thereof, the invention of Joseph Mazari, of Ita.ly,)·be limited to the specific
mechanical devices which constitutethe novelty of the combination. These
devices are the employment of a direction indicator so organized in relation
to the registering mechanism, both trip and permanent, that it cannot be
changed to indicate a diferent direction of travel without nrst bringing the
tripregister to the starting point and so adaéited to co-operate with the regis-
~ tering mechanism as, upon such change, to e ect atransfer from the trip to the
~ permanent register of the record of fares collected. So limited, these claims
are not infringed by a fare register in which the permanent register is not
V actuated by the act of resetting the trip register, but only when the trip reg-
ister is making its original record, and in which there is no locking device to
` ` detain the direction indicator, so that it cannot be moved until the trip regis-
' ` V ter is reset at zero.
V'; In Equity. Bill for injunction. i ]