of a single duty only, but a cessation of cohabitation, a refusal to live together, which involves an abrogation of all the duties resulting from the marriage contract.1 See ABANDON, 2 (1); NECESSARIES, 1. 2. By a sailor or seaman – an unauthorized leaving or absence from the ship with an intention not to return to her service.2 A quitting of the ship and her service, not only without leave and against the duty of the party, but with an intent not again to return to the ship's duty.3 3. By a soldier - absence and an intention not to return to the service.4 A minor, over eighteen and under twenty-one, who enlists in the army without the consent of his parent or guardian can commit the offense, and the military tribunals may try him therefor.5 4. Of property, see ABANDON, 1; DERELICTION, 3. 1. Aim, intent, purpose; obtention as a purchaser of the articles, for the purject, end in view. In an indictment for having in one's possession materials for counterfeiting, may refer to the purpose for which the materials were originally designed, and not to criminal intent in the defendant to use them." See INTENT; MALICE; WILL, 1. poses for which they were intended and purchased, would usually give. There may be an infringement of a patented design without taking the whole of it, but in such cases the part taken must be a part covered by the patent.2 Design patents stand on as high a plane as utility 2. Giving a visible form to a conception of patents, and require as high a degree of the inventive the mind, to an invention.8 The acts of Congress which authorize patents for designs were intended to give encouragement to the decorative arts. They contemplate not so much utility as appearance. It is a new and original design for a manufacture, whether of metal or other material; a new and original design for a bust, statue, bas relief, or composition in alto or basso relievo; a new or original impression or ornament to be placed on any article of manufacture; a new and original design for the printing of woolen, silk, cotton, or other fabric; a new and useful pattern, print, or picture, to be either worked into, or on, any article of manufacture; or a new and original shape or configuration of any article of manufacture, - one or all of these the law has in view. And the thing invented or produced, for which Southwick v. Southwick, 97 Mass. 328 (1867), Bigelow, C. J.; Magrath v. Magrath, 103 id. 579 (1870). Coffin v. Jenkins, 3 Story, 113 (1844), Story, J. • Cloutman v. Tunison, 1 Sumn. 375 (1833), Story, J.; The Mary Conery, 9 F. R. 223 (1881); 3 Kent, 155. Hanson v. South Scituate, 115 Mass. 343 (1874). • Re Zimmerman, 30 F. R. 176 (1887). • Nichols v. Allen, 130 Mass. 218 (1881), cases, Gray, Chief Justice. Commonwealth v. Morse, 2 Mass. *131 (1806). • [Binns v. Woodruff, 4 Wash. 52 (1821), Washington, J. or originative faculty. In patentable designs a person cannot be permitted to select an existing form, and simply put it to a new use, any more than he can be permitted to take a patent for a mere double use of a machine; but the selection and adaptation of an existing form may amount to a patentable design, as the adaptation of an existing mechanical device may amount to a patentable invention. See PAINTING; PATENT, 2. An act of Congress approved February 4, 1887 (24 St. L. 387), provides That hereafter, during the term of letters patent for a design, it shall be unlawful for any person other than the owner of said letters patent, without the license of such owner, to apply the design secured by such letters patent, or any colorable imitation thereof, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale, or to sell or expose for sale any article of manufacture to which such design or colorable imitation shall, without the license of the owner, have been applied, knowing that the same has been so 1 Gorham Company v. White, 14 Wall. 524-28 (1871), cases, Strong J.: Act 29 Aug. 1842; 5 St. L. 543. See Acts 8 July, 1870, and 18 June, 1874: R. S. §§ 4920-33. 2 Dryfoos v. Friedman, 18 F. R. 825 (1884), Wheeler, J. 3 Western Electric Manuf. Co. v. Odell, 18 F. R. 321 (1883), Blodgett, J. For the rule as to damages for infringement, see Dobson v. Hartford Carpet Co., 114 U. S. 439, 445 (1885), cases, Blatchford, J.; Dobson v. Dornan, 118 id. 10, 17 (1886).