dOO FEDERAL REPORTEII. �■within which is coiled a strip of material having upon it ignitable pelleta. This strip is fed out oi the case by a feeding device, and, when one of the pelleta bas arrived at the proper position, it is struck by a hammer, and thereby lights a wick or flexible punk, whicb is contained in a tube which bas a feeding device to govern the motion and position of the wick, and is provided with an extinguisher. The wick tube is so arranged. in relation to the point of explosion of the successive pellets as to insure the lighting of the wick by such explo- sion when the extinguisher is removed from its closed position and the wick is fed forward by the feeding device. Claims 1 and 2 cf No. 206,885 are as follows: �"(1) In a pocket lightiug device the combination of an adjustable percussion tape, ignited by any suitable meohanism; (2) in a pocket lighting device a box or case having a hammer capable of operation from the exterior, a wick duct or tube, means for feeding and exploding a pellet by the action o£ the hammer, and a wick f eeder." �The "adjustable tinder" is described as a wick or flexible punk, placed in a tube and adapted to be fed forward or upward by a star wbeel or other suitable device for that purpose. The "adjustable per- cussion tape" is described as fed forward by a pawl. A mechanism Buch as "a star wbeel or other suitable device" to feed the wick is an essential element in claim 1. It is a necessary feature of the "ad- justable tinder" of that claim. It is also a necessary element of claim 2 as "a wick feeder." In the defendant's structure there is no such mechanism. The wick is pulled by the hand in both directions without any feeding mech anism. Therefore, there is no inf ringement. �There must be a decree for the plaintiffs, on the urst five claims of No. 8,490, for an injunction and an account, with costs. ���Bernard and another v. Heimann and others. �{Circuit Court, 8. D. New York. October 7, 1881.) �l. Letthes Patent — Head-Ucveeings — Novelty. �Letters patent granted to Robert Qray, September 9, 1879, for an improve- ment in head-coverings,— the claim being for a head-covering consisting of a support of buckram or the hke, a top layer of flock, and a canton-flannel or other sirailar lining, substantially as and for the purpose described,— are not anticipated by the Kendall turban, Bracher's frame, the Morse hat, or the hats of 1876 of the Kovelty Company. �S, J. Oordon, for plaintiiis. J. H. Goodman, for defendants. ��� �
