Opinion of the Court.

it is calculated to arouse a suspicion that these proceedings were not had in the due and orderly administration of criminal law, and with a view to the arrest and punishment of offenders, but rather for the sake of rolling up a pecuniary claim against the government, or from some other equally dishonest motive. But it does not follow that the demurrer was properly sustained or that the claim can rightfully be denied by reason of the mere suspicion of wrong. If there had been but a single case before the commissioner, and the proceedings in that, as stated, be sufficient to establish a valid claim against the United States, then the demurrer ought to have been overruled, for the mere multiplication of the cases, even into the thousands, does not, as a matter of law, disclose any illegality. The facts attending the prosecutions should be fully presented in order that the bona fides of the transaction may be determined. We pass, therefore, to consider the petition as though it alleged but one case before the commissioner, one complaint filed, one warrant issued, and one party arrested.

That the refusal of the court to approve the account is no bar to the action is settled by United States v. Knox, 128 U. S. 230, although such refusal may be a matter for consideration in respect at least to the good faith of the transaction. United States v. Jones, 134 U. S. 483.

It is insisted by the government that the complaint does not state an offence; that in consequence there was no foundation for the issue of the warrant, or for the subsequent proceedings, and hence that there was in law no case before the petitioner as commissioner. We quote from the brief this statement of the alleged defects:

"It is not alleged that the accused did register; nor that he had no lawful right to register; nor that the registration books upon which his name appeared were made for an election at which a Representative in Congress might be chosen; nor, indeed, for any election whatever.

"It is, of course, perfectly clear that the affiants do not pretend to swear, as to facts, that accused fraudulently obtained registration contrary to law, but merely to express

Opinion of the Court.

a conclusion from the fact of non-residence at a certain

place."

It may be conceded that the offence is not stated with the fulness and technical accuracy required in an indictment, but we do not think that the complaint can be treated as an absolute nullity. In the seventy-seven cases in which the parties were arrested and held for trial it would seem that its sufficiency was conceded, for the account therefor was allowed and paid. While no estoppel is created by the act of the government in making such payment, yet it is significant as showing that no technical accuracy in a complaint is considered essential. Doubtless the defect in a complaint may be so great as to suggest a lack of good faith on the part of the commissioner, but it would be placing an undue burden on such officers to hold that their right to compensation rested on the fact that the offence was stated with such precision as to be beyond the reach of challenge. It is sufficient if the complaint is full enough to clearly inform the defendant of the offence with which he is charged. It was well said by the Supreme Court of Alabama, in Crosby v. Hawthorn, 25 Alabama, 221, 223:

"In preliminary proceedings of this nature, which are usually had before justices of the peace, technical accuracy cannot be expected, and is not required. It is sufficient, if, giving to the language employed its ordinary signification, the court may gather from it that an offence against the criminal law has been committed or attempted. If such proceedings were to be subjected to the rigid rules of criticism, and all the constituent elements of the offence sought to be investigated were required to be set forth in the affidavit or warrant with certainty, the administration of the criminal law would be greatly embarrassed, and offenders would often go unpunished, by reason of the hazard which the justice who issues, the party who procures, and the officer who executes the warrant for arresting them would incur. We must be content to gather the meaning of the party from the affidavit, and disregard the want of technical accuracy of description." There can be no mistake as to what was intended to be

Opinion of the Court.

charged in this complaint. It in effect alleges that the defendant was registered upon the registration books of a named ward, and registered as claiming to reside at a given number on a particular street in that ward; that he did not reside in such place, or in the ward or parish of Orleans, and that, therefore, he was fraudulently registered in violation of a specified section of the statutes. Fraudulent registration is the crime charged, and charged with particularity of section, ward, residence claimed, and section of the statute violated. Whether a party arrested upon a warrant issued on such complaint could be discharged on habeas corpus, it is unnecessary to determine. Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193, 203. For it cannot be that a commissioner guarantees to the government the sufficiency of the complaint filed before him, and is entitled to no compensation if it be found defective. If he has proceeded in good faith to render services to the government, acting upon a complaint manifestly intended to charge an offence, and, the defendant having been arrested upon such complaint holding an examination, and rendering a judicial decision thereupon-in the language of the statute, "hearing and deciding on criminal charges," he is entitled to compensation. We conclude, therefore, that this affidavit is not so defective as to deprive the commissioner of a right to compensation for services rendered in good faith in the proceedings founded thereon.

It, of course, cannot be tolerated, in the absence of express language, that compensation is to be paid when the defendant is bound over for trial, and not when he is discharged. That when the defendant is arrested and examination held there is a "criminal case," is clear. " is clear. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547; United States v. Patterson, 150 U. S. 65. That, unless there be an arrest and examination, there is no "case" within the meaning of section 1986 is equally clear. The amount allowed, ten dollars, precludes the idea that the mere filing of a complaint and issue of a warrant is sufficient. And the language of the statute is plain. The allowance is "for his services in each case, inclusive of all services incident to the arrest and examination."

Syllabus.

It follows from these considerations that a cause of action was stated as to the 1303 cases in which there was an arrest, examination, and discharge of the defendant, and that the Court of Claims erred in sustaining the demurrer to this petition. Judgment will, therefore, be

Reversed, and the case remanded, with instructions to overrule the demurrer, and for further proceedings in conformity to law.

MILLER v. EAGLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY.

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

No. 143. Argued December 11, 12, 1893.- Decided January 8, 1894.

No patent can issue for an invention actually covered by a former patent, especially to the same patentee, although the terms of the claims may differ.

The second patent, in such case, although containing a claim broader and more generical in its character than the specific claims contained in the prior patent, is also void.

But where the second patent covers matter described in the prior patent, essentially distinct and separable, and distinct from the invention covered thereby, and claims made thereunder, its validity may be sustained.

A single invention may include both the machine and the manufacture it creates, and in such case, if the inventions are separable, the inventor may be entitled to a monopoly of each.

A second patent may be granted to an inventor for an improvement on the invention protected by the first, but this can be done only when the new invention is distinct from, and independent of, the former one.

It is only when an invention is broad and primary in its character, and the mechanical functions performed by the machine are, as a whole, entirely new, that courts are disposed to make the range of equivalents correspondingly broad.

The invention claimed and protected by the letters patent issued June 7, 1881, to Edgar A. Wright, for new and useful improvements in wheeled cultivators, was anticipated by the claim in letters patent No. 222,767, granted to him December 16, 1879, for improvements in wheeled cultivators. The first claim in the said letters patent of June 7, 1881, was anticipated by letters patent No. 190,816, issued May 15, 1877, to W. P. Brown for an improved coupling for cultivators.

Opinion of the Court.

The said letters patent of December 16, 1879, in view of the state of the art at that time, are to be limited and restricted, if they have any validity, to the specific spring therein described; and, as thus restricted, they are not infringed by the sale of cultivators manufactured by P. P. Mast & Co. in accordance with various letters patent owned by them.

Ix equity for the infringement of letters patent. The case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. H. A. Toulmin and Mr. John T. Morgan for appellants.

Mr. L. L. Bond filed a brief for appellants.

Mr. George H. Christy, (with whom was Mr. Nathaniel French on the brief,) for appellee.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellee, as assignee of letters patent No. 222,767, dated December 16, 1879, and No. 242,497, dated June 7, 1881, issued to Edgar A. Wright, for certain new and useful improvements in wheeled cultivators, brought this suit against the appellants, who were the defendants in the court below, for the alleged infringement thereof.

The defences made in that court were that Wright was not the first and original inventor of the improvements described in the patents; that the same were shown and described in previous devices and letters patent, set forth in the answer; that the invention shown in each of the patents in suit is identical; that in each the supposed improvements relate to a spring and its attachments; that the function and operation of the parts are exactly the same in each; that one or both of the letters patent in controversy were issued without authority of law, and therefore void; that in view of the state of the art at the date of the alleged improvements of Wright, the letters patent granted to him did not exhibit any patentable invention, and for that reason are invalid; that the defendants were not engaged in the manufacture of cultivators, but have