· 4/15/1853

New England Screw Co. v. Sloan

Citations

  • 1 MacA. Pat. Cas. 210
  • 18 F. Cas. 72

Syllabus

<p>Testimony — best evidence — machines themselves — parol evidence. — Upon an issue of priority of invention in an interference proceeding, it is not true that the machines themselves are the best evidence, and must be produced or their absence satisfactorily accounted for before parol testimony ' can be admitted to prove their character and construction, and that otherwise the parol testimony is inadmissible.</p> <p>Delay in piling arguments. — An argument not filed within the time limited, and for that reason objected to, may be received if a reasonable excuse is offered in explanation of the delay.</p> <p>Hearsay evidence. — Testimony to the effect that the witness had been informed that a machine had been made and used at some former time, is not evidence.</p> <p>Evidence — witnesses not called. — The fact that an inventor has not produced as witnesses in his behalf the workmen in the same shop, who might be supposed to be most familiar with his invention, does not raise a presumption against him in a case where by publicity he might have deprived himself of the benefit of his invention.</p> <p>Sm — witness to invention need not be an expert. — It is not necessary that a witness should qualify as an expert to testify to the fact and date of an invention, if his knowledge and' memory are sufficient to enable him to truly relate the facts on the subject which he had heard and seen.</p> <p>Witnesses —presumption op honesty — discrepancies upon immaterial points. — The presumption is that a witness under oath testifies honestly, until the contrary is'shown. Contradictions and inconsistencies upon immaterial points, not proceeding from corrupt motives, do not entirely destroy his testimony.</p> <p>Sm — Sm—testimony grossly improbable. — The rule of law is, that where a witness stands wholly unimpeaclied by extrinsic circumstances, credit ought to be given to his testimony, unless it is so grossly improbable as to show that he is not to be trusted.</p> <p>Philosophic

Judges: Jiorsell, Morsell

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.