IICNSON V. THK MATOB,' ETC., OP NEW TOEK. 339 �of the cliarts. That case is distinguished and commented on in Baker v. Selden. Here the prinoiple of the invention is embodied in each register, as the principle of a machine is embodied in each machine. There is no difference because the contrivance is in the form of a book, although books are commonly copyrighted. Hawes t. Washhurn, 5 0. G. 491. The evidence shows that Warren and O'Brien made use of similar arrangements for the same purpose before the plain- tiff invented his, but not that either of them is the same aa his. Neither of them had any spaces for the bonds them- selves. Warren had spaces on the same page for each coupon of the same numher throughout the whole series of bonds, necessitating looking through as many pages as there were coupons to ûnd ail the coupons of any bond ; the plain- tiff has ail the coupons of each bond and the bond together. Warren had as many pages as coupons ; the plaintiff as many as bonds. It is not quite clear, from the evidence, what O'Brien's exact plan was. He says: "The pages were ruled to a sufficient extent to have posted in the coupons that were due each six months." This would be more like War- ren's plan than the plaintifs. The proof is abundant that the invention is useful, and that the defendant's officers make use of it for the bonds of the city. That the city is liable, in its corporate capacity, fOT such an, infringement, has been considered and deoided in AUen v. The Mayor, etc., iu this district. �Let there be a decree for injunction and an account, acoord- ing to the prayer of the bill, with costs. ����
