Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/101

 FISCHER V. NEIL. 89 �March and concluded on the nineteenth. It is shown that the direct examination of Mr. Abbott was regularly taken, on an oath preTiously administered to him by Mr. Shields, and that the allegations made by Mr. Whitelegge against his testimony are groundless. �The swearing of Mr. MacClay again on the eighth of April, 1880, after the close of his cross-examination, is fuUy ex- plained. �The motion is denied both in this case, and, in so far as it may be considered as made, in the cases against Neil and against O'Shaughnessey. ���FiscHEB V. Neil. �; {Oireuit Court, S. D. New York. January 26, 1881.) �1. EVIDEIICBI— WAIVEB OP OBJECTION. �If no objection is made upon the record to the admission of hearsay evidence, such objection will be considered as waived. �2. SAME — GENERAL OBJECTION. �A general objection will not be considered if no particular gronnd of objection is specifled. �3. Same— Specific Objection. �If a ground of objection is Btated, ail grounds not specifled are con- sidered as waived �4. JUEISDICTION— CiTIZENSHn». �Any issue as to citizenship ia immaterial where the subject-matter confers jurisdiction. �6. Patent — Phesumption of Ownehship. �In a suit for infringement the patentee will be presumed to be still the owner, where no assignment has been alleged or proved. �6. Lettebs Patent No. 74,068, granted to Valentine Fischer, Pebruary 4, 1868, for an "improvemeet in machine for fortning sheet-metal mouldings," are shown to be infringed, as to the fourth claim, by the evidence in this case.— [Ed. �In Equity. Suit for Infringement. Charles F. Blake, for plaintiff. James H. Whitelegge, for defendant. ��� �