Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/886

 874 FEDERAL REPORTER. �to 1870, says that she saw the "Weber cuspidor there between 1868 and 1870, in the library, where the glasa screen pre- sented by Mr. Dow was at the time. Mr. Dow testifies that he gave the glass screen to Mrs. Adams at Christmas of �1868. On cross-examination he was asked what made hun sure of that date, and he said, "collateral evidence," — the col- lateral evidence being that the family went abroad in May, �1869, and remained away over a year, and it could not have been Christmas of 1869. Now, it clearly appears that the Adams family went abroad in July, 1870; so the screen must have been given at Christmas of 1869, and the cuspi- dor appeared in the house after the screen did. �Mr. Dow attempts to fis another date by association. He says that in November, 1869, he took rooms at the Tremont House, in Chicago, and put one of the Weber cuspidors into them. On cross-examination, he says that he first went to the Tremont House to live while Mr. Adams was abroad. Then, when he finds that Mr. Adams was not abroad in November, 1869, he says that Mr. Adams was not abroad when he was living at the Tremont House. Suoh testimony proves nothing. The two young Webers give no reliable data for fixing a date earlier than Heath's invention. The older Weber isyery confused as to dates, and gives nothing reliable ; and his recollection that he made the cuspidors six months before the flower-stand was made would carry the date of the cuspidors back to 1866 — an impossible date on all the evidence. Muller gives no adequate reason for any date he fixes, nof does Meyer. As to the cuspidors said to have been put into the Chicago & Alton pay car, and the two put into Nolton's house, there is nothing in the testimony of Eice or ITolton, or Mrs. Nolton, or Corning which gives a reliable date earlier than that of Heath. The plaintiff gives reliable evidence from the railroad books that the pay car cuspidors were not earlier than June, 1871. Heinze gives no adequate reasbh for the date of 1868, nor does Brbderiok. Shay does not aid the defendant's case. Frost's reason for assigiiing a date before May, 1869, failed on his cross-exam- ination. Gray, Westlake, and CoVert furnished nothing satis- ��� �