872 FEDERAL REPORÏEB. �certain explosion. That of Plant was to guard against an explosion from any less cause than violent concussion with a hard and unyielding object. Eoberts sought to overcome the difficulty arising from the settling of the powder in the flask from its top. In Plant's torpedo no such difficulty existed, since its motion was horizontal. Moreover, Plant's device has five elements instead of four. Eoberts, with four ele- ments, accomplishes a different resuit from that which Plant only reaches by five. For these reasons we cannot think they are the same combinations, either in principle or results. �It foUows, from what we have said,'-First, that the re- issued process patent No. 6,258, belonging to the complain- ants, is valid, and that the defendant has been guilty of infringing it; and, second, that the patent for an improve- ment in exploding torpedoes in artesian wells. No. 47,458, is also valid, and that the first claim thereof has been infringed by the defendant. �A decree will therefore be entered for an injunction and an account. Let a decree be prepared accordingly. ���Beooks V. The Steamer Adirondaok, etc.* {District Court, 3. D. New York. June 11, 1880.) �Salvagb — Apportionment — Deceee. — It is proper to direct an apportion- ment of a salvage recovery before it is paid out of the registry. �Bame — Notice to Ckew — Dutt of Libellant. — Where tiie crew have not received the usual notice by publication to come in and make claim upon the vessel attached, or upon the fund iu court, it is incumbent upon the libellant, when not acting in the interest of such crew, to bring them in or have them duly notified to come in for the purpose of making the apportionment. �J. E. Parsons, for libellant. Butler, Stillman e Hubbard, for claim anta. Choate, D. J. This was a suit upon a special agreement for a salvage compensation rendered to the steamship Adiron- �*ISee ante, 387. ����
