Opinion of the Court.

a confederacy is formed may perhaps be inconsiderable, yet the association to pervert the law, in order to procure it, seems to be a crime of a very high nature, and justly to deserve the resentment of the law." 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 72, § 3. So in Regina v. Parnell, 14 Cox C. C. 508, 514, it was observed that an "agreement to effect an injury or wrong to another by two or more persons is constituted an offence, because the wrong to be effected by a combination assumes a formidable character. When done by one alone it is but a civil injury, but it assumes a formidable or aggravated character when it is to be effected by the powers of the combination." Tomlin says that "the word conspiracy was formerly used almost exclusively for an agreement of two or more persons falsely to indict one, or to procure him to be indicted, of felony," but that "now it is no less commonly used for the unlawful combinations of journeymen to raise their wages, or to refuse working, except on certain stipulated conditions." Toml. Law Dict., Title Conspiracy. See, also, Commonwealth v. Carlisle, Brightly (Penn.), 40; 3 Whart. Crim. Law, § 1337 et seq., 8th ed.; 2 Archibold's Cr. Pr. & Pl. (Pomeroy's ed.) 1830, note.

These authorities are sufficient to show the nature of the crime of conspiracy at common law. It is an offence of a grave character, affecting the public at large, and we are unable to hold that a person charged with having committed it in this District is not entitled to a jury, when put upon his trial. The jurisdiction of the Police Court, as defined by existing statutes, does not extend to the trial of infamous crimes or offences punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary. But the argument, made in behalf of the government, implies that if Congress should provide the Police Court with a grand jury, and authorize that court to try, without a petit jury, all persons indicted-even for crimes punishable by confinement in the penitentiary - such legislation would not be an invasion of the constitutional right of trial by jury, provided the accused, after being tried and sentenced in the Police Court, is given an unobstructed right of appeal to, and trial by jury in, another court to which the case may be taken. We cannot assent to that interpretation of the Constitution.

Syllabus.

Except in that class or grade of offences called petty offences, which, according to the common law, may be proceeded against summarily in any tribunal legally constituted for that purpose, the guarantee of an impartial jury to the accused in a criminal prosecution, conducted either in the name, or by or under the authority of, the United States, secures to him the right to enjoy that mode of trial from the first moment, and in whatever court, he is put on trial for the offence charged. In such cases a judgment of conviction, not based upon a verdict of guilty by a jury, is void. To accord to the accused a right to be tried by a jury, in an appellate court, after he has been once fully tried otherwise than by a jury, in the court of original jurisdiction, and sentenced to pay a fine or be imprisoned for not paying it, does not satisfy the requirements of the Constitution. When, therefore, the appellant was brought before the Supreme Court of the District, and the fact was disclosed that he had been adjudged guilty of the crime of conspiracy charged in the information in this case, without ever having been tried by a jury, he should have been restored to his liberty.

For the reasons stated,

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with di rections to discharge the appellant from custody.

JOYCE v. CHILLICOTHE FOUNDRY.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO.

No. 149. Argued January 26, 1888. Decided May 14, 1888.

Claim 1 of letters patent No. 154,989, granted to Jacob O. Joyce, September 15, 1874, for an improvement in lifting-jacks, namely, “A pawl for lever-jack with two or more teeth, and adapted to move in inclined slots, grooves, or guides formed in the frame, substantially as described," must be construed as limited to a pawl which acts wholly by gravity, and not at all by a spring, to press it against the teeth of the ratchet-bar.

Opinion of the Court.

Such claim is not infringed by a jack in which a spring is used to press the pawl against the teeth of the ratchet-bar, and in which there are no slots, guides or grooves formed in the frame, to guide the pawl.

IN EQUITY for the infringement of letters patent. Decree dismissing the bill. Complainant appealed. The case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. E. E. Wood for appellant. Mr. Edward Boyd was with him on the brief.

No appearance for appellees.

MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit in equity, brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio, by Jacob O. Joyce against the Chillicothe Foundry and Machine Works Company and F. M. De Weese, to recover for the infringement of letters patent of the United States, No. 154,989, granted to Jacob O. Joyce, September 15, 1874, for an improvement in lifting-jacks, on an application filed March 16, 1874.

The specification, claims, and drawings of the patent are as follows:

"Be it known that I, Jacob O. Joyce, of Carlisle Station, Warren County, Ohio, have invented certain improvements in lever-jacks, of which the following is a specification :

"My invention relates to the pawl of such jacks; and its objects are, first, to substitute the weight of the pawl, sliding in inclined slots, grooves, or guides, for the elastic spring usually employed to press it against the teeth of the ratchet-bar; and, second, to obtain greater strength by dividing the load among several teeth of the pawl and ratchet-bar, instead of supporting it all on one tooth, as is commonly done.

"Figure 1 of the accompanying drawings [see next page] is a vertical section of so much of a jack as is necessary to show my improvements; and Fig. 2 is a modification of the same, in which the pins and slots of Fig. 1 are exchanged for the tongue and groove in Fig. 2.

"Referring to Fig. 1, A is the pawl, having teeth that engage with the teeth of the ratchet-bar B. D D' are slots in the frame of the jack, inclined to the axis of the ratchet-bar at the angle of about forty-five degrees, in which slots move the pins C C' of the pawl A.

"The operation is seen at a glance. When the ratchet-bar is raised its teeth crowd or slide the pawl up the inclined slots

Opinion of the Court.

out of the way, so as to allow it to pass, until it has travelled the length of a tooth, when the weight of the pawl causes it to fall back into the next tooth below, ready to hold the ratchetbar at the point gained, ready for another lift, and so on.

"In Fig. 2, instead of slots D D', there is a tongue, D, on each side of the pawl, with corresponding grooves in the frame of the jack, in which the said tongues move; or the tongues may be on the frame, with the grooves in the pawl; the tongues and grooves performing the same office that the pins and slots do in the form of construction shown in Fig. 1.

"Other modifications, involving the same principle of operation, may be possible; but I prefer the construction represented in Fig. 1, at the same time not limiting myself strictly to that, but claiming any equivalent arrangement by which the same objects are accomplished in substantially the same

manner.

"I claim as my invention.

"1. A pawl for lever-jack with two or more teeth, and adapted to move in inclined slots, grooves, or guides formed in the frame, substantially as described.

"2. The combination of the pawl A with its pins C C', slots D D', and ratchet-bar B, substantially as described.”

ment.

Each defendant put in a separate answer, alleging want of novelty, and setting forth sundry prior patents in which, it was averred, the invention was contained, and also giving the names of sundry prior inventors. Each answer denied infringeThe answer of the company averred that it had made for its codefendant parts of lifting-jacks in accordance with letters patent of the United States granted to Samuel Mosler, No. 168,663, dated October 11, 1875; No. 172,471, dated January 18, 1876; and No. 194,711, dated August 28, 1877. Issue was joined and proofs were taken on both sides, and the Circuit Court dismissed the bill, with costs. Its decision is reported in 15 Fed. Rep. 260.

In the opinion of the Circuit Court it is said: "The specification describes, and the drawings show, a frame with parallel sides,, between which a pawl moves in parallel slots in the frame, forming guideways inclined toward the vertically mov