86 PEDEBAL EEPOBTEB. �Neither discovery nor invention -was necessary to do this. The defendants' witnesses, upon the defence of want of nov- elty, refer to several forms of corrugated iron previously used, and ail would fill the specification and claim made by the complainant. �■ The fact that the iron, at the point of contact with the wood, is double in thickness, or that the nail holes at the joints may be made elongated in order not to interfere with the nails in case of expansion or contraction, lengthwise, of the corruga- tions, will not sustain the patent; nor will his manner of forming the joints Connecting the several sections of sheath- ing aid him. There is no novelty in the latter. The bi]l is dismissed, with costs. ���MuEEAT and others v. The Perry-Boàt P. B. Nimiok. (District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. 1880.) �ADMiBAiiTT— Seambn's Waoes— Rbv. 8t. ^ 4546 and 4547.— The pro- cedure authorized by sections 4546 and 4547 of the Revised Statutes, in relation to seamen's wages, is a summary and cumulative remedy given to seamen, which they may pursue at their option ; but they are not thereby deprived of the right in the flrst instance to the ordinary admi- ralty procesa against a vesael, upon a direct application to the court or judge. �Admibaltt JnEiSDiCTioiî — Ferbï-Boat. — A steam ferry-boat, plying between two points on the opposite sides of the Ohio river, within the same state and county, is subject to admiralty jurisdiction. �Knox e Reed, for libellants. �Barton e Sons, for respondent. �AcHEsoN, D. J. In this case Alonzo Murray presented in open court his libel for wages against the steamboat F. B. Nim- ick, wherein he alleges "that the said steamboat is a vessel duly enroUed and licensed under the laws of the United States, in the office of the surveyor of customs for the port of Pitts- burgh, and has been engaged in navigating the Ohio river. " The court ordered the libel to be filed and process to issue against the boat. ����
