In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants (1913)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

1182 James J. Lodge, Cross Examination. cember 18, 1908, at which the subject of the formation of the General Film Company was discussed? A. Not as the general discussion of the meeting, but amongst the different members, and what it was proposed to do. Undoubtedly I can swear, and will do so. Mr. Caldwell: I offer in evidence the opinion of Judge Gray, concurred in by Justices Buffington and MacPherson, United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in the case of George Melies Company, Appellant, against Motion Picture Patents Company, Edison Manufacturing Company and others, at the October Term, 1912. And I state that I offer it not only for the purpose of discrediting this witness, but also that it relates to matters which have been brought out in his direct examination. Mr. Grosvenor: I object to that as immaterial, and the alleged purpose of discrediting the witness is farcical, in view of the fact that this suit was not referred to on the direct examination, and relates entirely to different matters, namely, the question was in that suit whether or not the Patents Company had given a license to the Melies Company or the company in which this witness was interested, and therefore it cannot have any bearing on the suit. Mr. Caldwell: He has testified that he had a license from the Motion Picture Patents Company, and as the unanimous decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals is that he did not have a license and that there never was any obligation, legal or otherwise, on the part of the Patents Company to give him a license. Mr. Grosvenor: In view of the fact that part of that affidavit has been read from in the cross examination, I will offer in evidence the whole of the affidavit. Mr. Caldwell: The affidavit is objected to as being totally irrelevant and incompetent; I merely referred to a part of the affidavit for the purpose of testing the accuracy and memory of the witness; and it is further objected to on the ground that it unnecessarily encumbers the record in this case. I