Allington & Curtis Manuf'g Co. v. Globe Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio

Allington & Curtis Manuf'g Co. v. Globe Co.

73 F. 394, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2639

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio

DecidedApril 6, 1896

DocketNo. 4,490

StatusPublished

This text of 73 F. 394 (Allington & Curtis Manuf'g Co. v. Globe Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allington & Curtis Manuf'g Co. v. Globe Co., 73 F. 394, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2639 (circtsdoh 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

SAGE, District Judge.

The defendant’s motion for further extension of time to take testimony is overruled. It appears that counsel for the complainants, whose residence is at Hartford, Conn., was in attendance at Cincinnati all the time from the morning of February 28 to the evening of March 14,1886, to toe present at Hie taking of defendant’s evidence, but that the defendant took no evidence except on the first two and the last five of those days, although his counsel was in his office during the seven intervening business days. The only testimony taken during the second week in March was the deposition of one of defendant’s experts, who occupied four days of that time in answering one question, without any assistance from counsel for defendant. The proposition now is to open up the testimony, to allow the taking of the deposition of another expert with reference to the operation of the Stratton steam separator when experimentally used as a dust collector. I see no reason why counsel for the defense cannot, if they so desire, procure from the expert, for their own use, his views on that subject, and then incorporate the substance of them in their brief or in their oral arguments. Such testimony is, after all, argumentative, and in most cases would be quite as effective if presented to tbe court as a part of the arguments of counsel. It is forcible in proportion as it appeals to the judgment and conviction of the court, rather than on account of its being under oath. Or, as suggested by Judge Taft, when a similar application was made to him, the steam separator might he operated in open court on the hearing in the experimental way desired. The showing made is not sufficient to justify the extension requested. The application is refused.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SAGE, District Judge.

The defendant’s motion for further extension of time to take testimony is overruled. It appears that counsel for the complainants, whose residence is at Hartford, Conn., was in attendance at Cincinnati all the time from the morning of February 28 to the evening of March 14,1886, to toe present at Hie taking of defendant’s evidence, but that the defendant took no evidence except on the first two and the last five of those days, although his counsel was in his office during the seven intervening business days. The only testimony taken during the second week in March was the deposition of one of defendant’s experts, who occupied four days of that time in answering one question, without any assistance from counsel for defendant. The proposition now is to open up the testimony, to allow the taking of the deposition of another expert with reference to the operation of the Stratton steam separator when experimentally used as a dust collector. I see no reason why counsel for the defense cannot, if they so desire, procure from the expert, for their own use, his views on that subject, and then incorporate the substance of them in their brief or in their oral arguments. Such testimony is, after all, argumentative, and in most cases would be quite as effective if presented to tbe court as a part of the arguments of counsel. It is forcible in proportion as it appeals to the judgment and conviction of the court, rather than on account of its being under oath. Or, as suggested by Judge Taft, when a similar application was made to him, the steam separator might he operated in open court on the hearing in the experimental way desired. The showing made is not sufficient to justify the extension requested. The application is refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 F. 394, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allington-curtis-manufg-co-v-globe-co-circtsdoh-1896.