New-York daily tribune., 1859-07-30


o.th Of Oc. Der, 1876. the fret iD the series
The cen plsinabts aiege tb., by that paper Gcoi-
year assigned to Day the rigtt to manufacture sH
Is9a-RnJttr goods that ,tre skirred and TO uze in
the manufacture thereof Goodyear invention of val
csnized rubber, as patented TO him on the lj'h OF
joe, 1874, and r,,ssu-d on the 18th o. December,
1919 On the ether hsn5, the defendants alsge tha.
the term ,kirred or corruPaged goods, as used 10
the contracts Of 1916 is hm.ed aud y intended .,
be hunted To- the gooes made under toe pi.ent Of
March g. 1874 END does include any otter shvrcd
goo6s" which mil ht be made Of WI anized rubber.
TIE fret thing which We ascertain in the e1suina
on Of this contract IT, that By u, terms !: inclodes
oil Ipdis Rubber goods t. at are corrugated ,hired
"shhred" beng a technical term meaning
"yripkled'' or contracted" Upon the face Of toe
paper, then, it includes all India Rubber goods that
are II ace with vulcanized rubber, and th,t are
q" "wrnkle6 OF corrugated" Corrugated" Is another
tenn which n.eaps the sane a, " rriaslcd' 10 the
English language. Noa, is there snytbiog IN the
paper itself ID the surrounding circumstances, or in
the tubs. queDt cohveyances, TO narrow tue b'osd
language Of TIE grspt Let Us look at II. The grant
is the fol-. absolute and exclusive right bcsnse
and priyil.ge" 10 manuft ctu,e Shared ar c0rrs-
rated goods Now the term corrugated" ia vel
known in the English language and is TO be found IN
ali the oictionaries, and it wriDked or con-
tracted." But was the term " shrred' known to the
trade or any trade prior to the 9th Of March, lsi4I
How stands the testimony on tais point
But before advertipg to it, the Court would re-
ma,k that while the Interpretation and construction OF
all written Instruments is for the Court, it neverthe-
less will bring to its aid the ie.timony Of witnesses I"
ezpiain ten ms Of art and make hseJ ocquo9ed nth
tie por iai ac,th tckich the contracts dtal and ~it
ile circumstances under which they gere Ha0se but
neither the testimony Of witnesses in general, nor OF
professors experts mechanics, can be received to
prove TO the Court what is the proper or legal coz
struction of any instrument or wriong. Sneh evil
hnce is inadmsslble. The Supreme Court, IN 10
Hotca,d d. iD the case of Corning u.s. Burden, held
this language page 21O; The refusal Of the Court
to bear the opinion Of experts as 70 the construction
OF the patent was proper. Experts may be examined
as to the me snug If terms u art on the principle OF
'cuqve an arte cred, ndum'-bdt not as to the
construction of written instruments. And in u
How ard, in the case of Wiaons as. The Ner- York
and Ere R0airOad Company page lOO) the Court
cay: "Tbe testimony of experts which was rejected
had relevancy TO the ia It's which the Jury were
to pass but seemed rather be Intended to instruct
the CouIt on some mechanical facts or principles on
which the Court needed instruction. to teach them
what vas the true construction Of the patent Ex.
peIts may be examined 70 explain terms of ar, and
the state of the art, at any given time. They may
explain to the Court and jury the machines, models,
or drawings exhibited. They may point out the diff.
fer,nccs identity of the mechanical devices involved
in their construction. TIE maxim OF cat2ue 'a s"d
orte ercSendum permits them to be examined to
questions Of art tcence peculiar to their trade or
pIOfession but professors mechanics cannot be re-
ceived TO prove to the Court or jury whst IL the
proper or legal construction Of any instrument OF
writing Judge may obtain information from them,
if he desires it, matters which he does not clearly
con prehend but cannot be co npeed to receive their
opinions as matter of evidence Experience has shown
that opposite opinions of persons protesting to be eA-
perts may be obtained to any amount and it often
that not only many days, but even weeks, are
umed in cross-examinatioDs, to test the skill or
knowledge of such witnesses, and the corectnes, OF
tteir opinions, wasting the tms and wearying the
patience Of both Court and jury, and perpleAing
instead Of Calculating the questpns involved 10
the ISSUE Greepleaf Evids snce very clearly points
out the cases in which the Court will brug in the aid
Of the testimony of witnesses to assist in construrg
written inst uments. y Greeal on Er, 2a2 From
the ex ,mples given in the two pr seeding sections 1t
il thus apparent that the rule excludes only parol eri-
dence Of tke language of the parties, contrsc'Dg,
varying or adding 10 that which is contained in the
| written instrument; and this, because they have
| Il iemseyes committed to writing oil which they
deemed necessary to give full expression to their
nearing and because Of the nlischiefs which would
result If verbal testimony were In such cases received
1t is also 10 be kept in mind, that though the hrst
question in all Of contract is one OF interprea
ton and intention, yet the question, as we nave ai'
| read, rem arked is not what the parties may have
secretly ano in fact intended, but what neaning did
| they intend 10 convey by the words they
,npo, ed in the written instrument To xscer ain the
! meaning of these words it is obvious that psrUl
evidence of exrsneous facts AMI circumstances nay
in some cases be admitted to very great extent,
without in any w!se Infringing the spirit OF the rule
under consideration. Aso in section $50, he says:
As il is leading rule in regard 10 written in'tru-
ments that they 10 be Interpreted according to
their subject matter it s obvious shat paro Ur verbal
tesin Oily must be Iesored TO IN order to ascertain
/ tte mature d,a qualities ~ tie SUBJECT to which
! iustruneit refers. Evidence which is calculated
TO explain the subject Of an instrument Is essentially
Different in its character from evidence OF verbal COM
nuuicatons respecting it. Whatever, therefore, in
ocatcs the nature of tie subject is just medium Of
pe;Tatop OF the language and meaning OF the par
ties in relation to it, and also just foundation for
! giving the instrument al Interpretation, when consd-
,cd relatively, different from that which 1t wodld re-
ceive fconsdered in TIE abstract. Also, in section
90, he sasy: But il resortiDs to usage for the
zaeanHg of particular i-oTds in contract, dstinc-
ton is to be -:ved between local and technical
words and other words. In regard to words which
are purely iechI;ca or !ocalthat is, woris which
are not of universal use, but fsmiliaIy known and
I'll ployed, either in particular district, or 10 par
iouar science or ta6e-paicl evidence IS always re-
| coiysble TO define snd explain tlis meaning among