98 FEDERAL BBFOBTEB. �a copy of the mandate of the supreme court of the United States, a copy of the order of February 2, 1881, a copy of the affldavit of the serv- ice of a copy pf the last-named otder on the defendant and on his solic- itoy, a copy of the notice of motion and certiflcate on which the plaintiff moved for an order that process issue to carry into effect the order flled March 13, 1880, the fact of serrice thereof on the defendant and the hear- ing of said motion and of counsel for the defendant therein, and then stating that " it appearing that the said George Hayes has not paid the said fine imposed by the hereinbefore recited orders, and this warrant of com- niitment having been ordered by the said court to issue, by an indorse- ment thereon in the words and figures following, viz.: 'Let the within warrant of commitment issue from this court, under the seal thereof and the hand oi the clerk thereof. Saml. Blatcliford, circuit judge,' " and then ordering the marshal to take the body of the defendant and keep him in custody until he shall have paid into court the sum of ^1,389.99, the amount of said fine, togetlier with the fees of the marshal thereon. �The decision of this court, on the final hearing of this case on pieadings and proofs, was made on the twenty-sixth of January, 1881, and an interlocutory decree has been entered herein in favor of the plaintiff, under which an accounting is proceeding. There can be no final decree till after a report on such accounting, and there can be no appeal to the su- preme court till after such final decree. The defendant con- tends that the grounds assigned by the supreme court, in its decision dismissing the -writ of error, as the reasons for its action, show a valid reason why such warrant of commit- ment should be withheld until the record on the final decree herein is brought before the supreme court for review; that this contempt proceeding will not bear the construction that it is a matter criminal in its character; that the supreme court has left open the question as to whether the matter is a criminal one, or is to be treated as a part of the suit in equity ; that, if it is the latter, it cannot be reviewed by the supreme court till after a final decree in the suit ; that there was no intentional violation of the injimction; that in such case a contempt is not a criminal contempt; that the con- tempt proceedings is this case involve only the question as to whether a given machine inf ringes the patent ; that for that reason, and because they are entitled in the suit, and concern only the parties to the suit, they are part of what was done in the suit, and so are reviewable on appeal; and that the ��� �
