Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-12-07
PATENT SECRETS INvIOLATE
RECORDS NOT PRODUCED IN
HEANY-EvERDING TRIAL.
Court Sustains Refusal Of Examiner
Kinnan-Woman Clerks Testify
to Handwriting.

Although the defense has intimated that
great big surprise is on it's way to the
trial Of John A. Heaney and Henry E.
Everding. in Criminal Court No. I, before
Judge Gould. this mornings session was
an uninteresting drone A few material
facts. however. were sifted from the mass
of detail in which both sides buried
themselves.
Patent office employees testified that they
did not make certain entries and write
certain letters-the inference being that
some one ION the inside" had doctored the
records.
Examiner Arthur Kinnan of the paten:
office was again upon the stand this
morning. He was cross-examined by
Attorney Douglass in regard to the rule
OF secrecy observed by the patent office.
and refused to produce certain patent
office records bearing on certain inter-
ference in which the Heany patent of
1904 was concerned.
Judge Gould was asked to decide
whether or not Kinnan should disclose the
Office secrets. He ruled that the names
of certain people need not be disclosed.
Counsel for the defendants asked many
questions on minor points. and endeavor-
ed to find out who had access to the pa
pers In the patent office, also whether
Ned Barton and Leonard Day worked
near one another on certain indexing
job.
Mr.. Douglass made an insistent exami-
nation of Mr.. Kinnan. trying to find out
whether Heany had not made a demon
stration of his electric light in the pat
ent office before any application for a
patent had been made. Mr.. Kinnan said
he could not remember at what time
the demonstration had been made.
Leak Is Not Established.
The whole line of questioning seemed
to he an effort to show that there was a
leak in the Office somewhere. But Mr..
Kinnan's answers were never an admis-
sion of this possibility.
The next witness called was Miss
Clara v. Quigg. copyist in the patent
Office. Mr.. Adkins, for the government,
asked her. in minute detail, as to her
clerical duties and had her outline the
regular course of papers through division
81 of the patent Office.
He also had her testify as to the mar
einai notes and pen markings on the pat
ent papers. some of which are said to
have been put on improperly. Miss Quigg
picked out her own marks quickly ana
pointed out others she claimed We're not
made by her.
The typewriter sheets. which the gov
eminent claims were inserted in the pat
ent papers two years after the application
was made with the intention OF defraud-
ing the patent Office, were shown to her.
She said her writing appeared on none CT
these.
Entries Made by Wrong Persons.
The point of her testimony was that
certain entries were made by the wrong
persons. One of the mechanical drawings
in the case was shown her and she testi-
fed that the serial number appearing
thereon was written by some one else, al
though it was her duty to place 1t there.
The cross-examination of the defense
carried the hint that the disputed mark
ings might have been made by extra
clerks or accounted for by crowded con-
dition Of the work.
Eta F. Johnston of the patent ONCE
followed and started to testify as to the
handwriting.
Judge Gould, with the memories of
many long. droning hours Of similar tes-
timony. took hand. In just seven quick
questions he determined what Miss johns
ton had written on the papers and what
she had not written.
Her main testimony was that letter on
a patent office letterhead from thee divi-
sion. for which she was typwriting was
not her work. This Is one of the principal
exhibits in the governments case. IL
Following up this piece of testimonyhthe
letter book of the patent office was shown
and the copy Of the letter was found IN
It. The pcint was made that some one had
wrongful access to the letter book.