orable Nathaniel Shiuman, District Judge, at a stated term of this court held at the United States Court House in the City of New York on the 5th day of July, A. D. 1888, I, Benjamin Smith, one of the masters of said court, do hereby summon you, John Doe, complainant, and Richard Roe, defendant, to appear before me, the said Benjamin Smith, at my office at No. 206 Broadway, in the City and County of New York in the Southern District of New York, on the fourth day of January, A. D. 1889, at two o'clock in the afternoon, to attend a hearing before me, the said master, of the matters in reference in the said cause to be had by virtue of the decretal order aforesaid. And hereof fail not at your peril. BENJAMIN SMITH, Master. Dated the 28th day of December, 1888. To JOHN DOE and RICHARD ROE. BENJAMIN SMITH, Master. FORM LVI.-MASTER'S WARRANT OR SUMMONS IN PATENT CASE. [From record in 101 Fed. 126, 41 C. C. A. 250. This is the usual form in the Second Circuit. In Beckwith v. Malleable Iron Range Co., 195 Fed. 291, D. C. E. D. Wisc., Judge Sanborn quashed such a summons because he held that Eq. Rule 79 of 1842, now Eq. Rule 63, did not apply to such an accounting. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit subsequently granted a mandamus directing the court below to require the defendant to account under Eq. Rule 79, without passing upon the question whether the summons was too broad. Re Beckwith, C. C. A., 203 Fed. 45, S. C., C. C. A., 201 Fed. 518. See S. C., 207 Fed. 848, supra, § 389a.] United States [District] Court, District of Connecticut. HARRIOT H. WALES vs. THE WATERBURY MFG. CO. J No. 365, in Equity. To the Waterbury Manufacturing Company, defendant, and to Augustus S. Chase, Henry S. Chase and Richard J. Ashworth, being officers and agents of said defendant: The undersigned having been appointed master pro hac vice for stating the account authorized by the interlocutory decree herein, you are required and directed to be and appear before me at the office of C. W. Gillette, Esq., in Waterbury, on the first day of July, A. D. 1894, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon, then and there to render to me upon the oath or oaths of such one or more of you, or of the confidential agents of said defendant as shall have the most certain and full knowledge of the same, a statement in writing of the lever buckles and pencil holders with lever buckles attached, which contain or embody in any manner the device described and claimed in claims 1, 2 and 3, of the letters patent of the United States, numbered 172,527, granted and issued January 18, 1876, to Sigourney Wales and Nathaniel H. Furness, which has been made, sold or used by you, or any of you, since June 4, 1881, with the names of all the parties to whom you have sold the same, the dates of the sales and the price received therefor, and the gains and profits made by you or any of you thereon. And you will have there with you in court all the books and vouchers in your possession, on which all the said data were originally entered, together with all books and vouchers in your possession which show the cost of labor and materials used in making such lever buckles, especially all day books, journals, ledgers, order books, blotters and cash books used by defendant since January 18, 1881. Dated at Hartford, July 27, 1894. Service accepted E. E. MARVIN, Master pro hac vice. Waterbury, July 28, 1894. GEO. E. TERRY, Defendant's Attorney. Waterbury, July 31, 1894. It is ordered that the defendant's statement presented to-day be extended so as to show the lever buckles of each variety in each and every year of the period covered by the accounting. E. E. MARVIN, Master pro hac vice. FORM LVII.-NOTICE ACCOMPANYING DRAFT OF MASTER'S REPORT. [District] Court of the United States for the Southern District of SIRS: You are hereby notified that I have prepared the draft of my report upon the matters referred to me as master, by the interlocutory decree herein dated the 30th day of November, 1887, and that a copy of such draft report accompanies and is annexed to this notice and is herewith served upon you; you are also hereby notified that I shall sign and file said draft report as my report herein, unless alterations are made by me therein, upon suggestions of counsel for either party hereto, and that I appoint the 26th day of February, 1889, at my office, Room 3, No. 10 Wall Street, in the City and County of New York, at 11 o'clock in the forenoon of said day, for counsel for either party hereto to present to me any suggestions of amendments to or alterations of said draft report, and to file with me written objections of exceptions thereto, if any they have to the same. Yours, &c., Dated New York, February 21, 1889. BENJAMIN SMITH, Master. TO MESSRS. BROWN & BLACK, Complainant's Solicitors, 1 Broadway; and ROBERT JONES, Defendant's Solicitor, 111 Broadway, New York City. FORM LVIII.-ACCOUNT OF INFRINGEMENTS OF PATENT. [From record in 41 C. C. A. 250, 101 Fed. 126, in which the author was counsel for complainant.] United States [District] Court, of Connecticut. HARRIOT H. WALES vs. THE WATERBURY MFG. CO. J No. 365. In Equity. Pursuant to the interlocutory decree herein, and the order of the master requiring a statement in writing of the lever buckles and pencil holders with lever buckles attached, containing or embodying in any manner the device described and claimed in claims 1, 2 and 3 of letters patent of the United States, numbered 172,527, dated January 13, 1876. Schedule "A," hereto annexed and made a part of this return, contains all sales made or buckles specified in claims 1, 2 and 3 of said patent, from June 14, 1881, to January 18, 1893, together with the names of the persons to whom they were sold, the date when sold and the prices obtained therefor. Schedule "B" contains a statement of the cost of each of the several kinds of buckles embraced in schedule "A." Schedule "C" contains a statement of the cost of the buckle and pencil holder combined. Schedule "D" contains a statement of the cost of the buckle and button combined. Schedule "E" contains a statement of the number of each of the several buckles sold, the price received therefor, the cost thereof deducted, showing the net profit or gain derived from the sales of such lever buckles. Schedule "F" contains a statement of the number of buckles combined with the pencil holder that were sold, the price received therefor, the cost thereof deducted, showing the net gain or profit thereof derived from the sale of the combined buckle and pencil holder which last schedule is filed under protest, under the assumption that said pencil holder was not a patented article, and not within claims 1, 2 and 3 of said patent, and that the buckle, and the buckle alone, should only be accounted for. It will be borne in mind that the sales made to E. Faber, as shown in schedule "A," are the same buckles that were used in connection with the pencil holder, and are included in the statements shown in schedule "F." All of which is respectfully submitted. Waterbury, Nov. 17, 1894. FORM LIX.-ORDER OF SUPREME COURT CONSOLIDATING CAUSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING TESTIMONY AND APPOINTING COMMISSIONER. [State of Ohio v. State of West Virginia, 252 U. S. 563.] [TITLE] ON CONSIDERATION of the respective motions of the complainants for the appointment of a Special Master and of the defendant for the appointment of a Commissioner to take the testimony and report the same to the Court and of the motions to consolidate the cases for the purpose of taking such testimony, IT IS NOW HERE ORDERED that the motions to consolidate the cases for the purpose of taking the proofs be, and the same are hereby, granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Levi Cooke, of the District of Columbia, be, and he is hereby, appointed a Commissioner to take and return the testimony in these causes, with the powers of a Master in Chancery, as provided in the rules of this Court; but said Commissioner shall not make any findings of fact or state any conclusions of law. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complainants shall take their evidence, at such place or places as they may indicate, between the first day of May, 1920, and the first day of October, 1920, upon giving ten days' notice of the time and place of taking such evidence to the counsel for the defendant; that the defendant may take evidence, at such place or places as it may indicate, between the first day of October, 1920, and the first day of March, 1921, upon giving ten days' notice of the time and place of taking such evidence to the counsel for the complainants; that the complainants shall take their evidence in rebuttal between the first day of March, 1921, and the first day of April, 1921, at such place or places as they may indicate, upon giving ten days' notice to counsel for defendant, and the defendant shall then conclude the taking of its evidence in surrebuttal on or before the first day of May, 1921, upon giving ten days' notice of the time and place of taking such evidence to the counsel for complainants. Provided, however, that if complainants shall conclude the taking of their evidence in chief before the first day of October, 1920, and shall give notice thereof, that time for the taking of evidence in chief on the part of defendant shall begin to run fifteen days after giving of said notice by the complainants; and if the defendant shall conclude the taking of its evidence before the first day of March, 1921, and shall give notice thereof, the thirty-one days' time for the taking of evidence in rebuttal on behalf of the complainants shall begin to run fifteen days after the giving of said notice by the defendant; and the thirty days' time for the taking of evidence on behalf of defendant in surrebuttal shall begin to run from the termination of said thirty days' allowed for the taking of the evidence in rebuttal by the complainants; but nothing in this proviso contained shall operate or be construed to postpone the ultimate dates for the commencement of the time for the taking of the defendant's evidence in chief, the complainants' evidence in rebuttal and the defendant's evidence in surrebuttal, respectively, first above specified. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the said complainants and the defendant, respectively, shall make such deposits with the Clerk of this Court for fees, costs and expenses of the said Clerk and of the said Commissioner as they may from time to time be requested by said Clerk. FORM LX.-ORDER APPOINTING MASTER TO SUPERVISE STOCKHOLDERS' MEETING. [Bartlett v. Yates, 118 Fed. 68.] Now on this 2d day of October, A. D. 1902, the motion for a modification of the injunction heretofore granted in the original cause above entitled filed herein by the cross-complainants, John W. Gates, James A. Blair, John Lambert, John J. Mitchell, and Arthur J. Singer having come on regularly for hearing, the plaintiff and respondent to the cross-bill, George F. Bartlett, appearing by his solicitor, A. M. Stevenson, Esq., the cross-complainants appearing by their solicitors, William B. Hornblower, Esq., Joel F. Vaile, Esq., and Charles W. Waterman, Esq., and the defendants and respondents to the cross-bill, to wit, the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company, David C. Beaman, Julian A. Kebler, John C. Osgood, Alfred C. Cass, John T. Kebler, Cass E. Herrington, John L. Jerome, William H. James, and Dennis Sullivan, appearing by David C. Beaman, Esq., Cass E. Herrington, Esq., and Charles J. Hughes, Jr., Esq., their counsel, and the court having heard read the original bill, cross-bill, and the affidavits, pleadings, and records offered in support of the said motion and in opposition thereto, and also including the original petition for removal of said cause and the affidavits in support thereof and in opposition thereto, and also the pleadings and affidavits filed in that certain cause pending in this court wherein John J. Mitchell and others were complainants and the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company and others were defendants, and having heard the arguments of counsel, and the court being fully advised in the premises, it is by the court ordered and adjudged as follows: First. That the original injunction heretofore issued in said original cause above entitled by the district court of the Second judicial district of the State of Colorado sitting within and for the County of Aprapahoe, in said state, by order of said court dated the 20th day of August, 1902, be, and the same is hereby, modified as follows: So much of said injunction as undertakes to enjoin and restrain the stockholders of the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company, or any of them from holding or voting at any meet |