wrzrnns Ye. sowiinsp 11
to open the case to admit it in evidence, onfthe ground that their former
· counsel had misjudged as to the scope of the prior patent, and that
they had relied upon his ·skil1 and fidelity as an attorney of the court, · `
when in fact he was not at that time, although assuming to be, an attor-
ney of the court at all. Judge BLATCHFORD denied the motion, after a
· very careful review of the case and grounds of the motion. In doing so
he said: ‘ .
` " This is not a case of newly-discovered evidence. The grewamen of the
application is the alleged laches, and inexperience and incompetence, of Mr.
Whitney. If such grounds were to be admitted as reasons for opening cases.
there would never be an end of a suit, so long as new counsel could be em-
ployed who could allege and show that prior counsel had not been sufficiently
diligent,*=0r·experienced, 0r·1earned.” i _, ___ _ i
These cases abundantly show that no mistakes of judgment, or want
of attention, of counsel, if there were any such, which is not intended to
be atiirmed or implied, affords any7just or proper grasses for granting
this motion and opening the case. The judgments and decrees of courts
I should rest upon such solid bases of fact as may be had by the usual
modesfof _procedure, and the rules of evidence established by law and
usage., At first sight, it might appear that the retaking of evidence, or V
the taking of new evidence, could justly wrong no one, for the making
of more itruth to appear would afford greater opportunity for just judg-
ment. But affording chances for retaking testimony after judgment
might not always, and probably would not often, tend tothe elucidation
of truthQ Temptations would be furnished which it is the policy of the
‘ law to avoid. .. . · “ ~ .
Thetestimony of Albert Sowles, as taken and filed in this case, is ap- —
parently straightforward, candid, truthful, and fair. ‘ The defendant had,.
and availed himself of, full opportunity, to cross-examine him upon it,
and, after months to consider it in, a further opportunity to examine
him, and to testify himself with reference to anyfacts that might be
elicited. .. Itdoes not satisfactorily appear now that truth and justice
would be any more likely to be reached in this cause by affording an-
othef opportunity, which cannot tandem withoutbreaking over well-
settled rules and established modesof procedure. These views are not
intended to reflect upon the testimony of any ofthe witnessestaken and
filed, nor upon the course taken by client or counsel in making and pre-
senting this motion ;` butjthey lead inevitably to the conclusion that this
motion must be denied. t V »
It is admitted by the orator that there aresecurities held by him, from
the avails of whichrthere may be something to apply o_n this debt, and
therebyilessen the loss inconsequence of this loan; and that it was un-
derstood that, if the amount of the loss should be necessary to be ascer-
. tained, a reference to a master-for that purposelwonld benecessary. The
directions fora decree should be modified accordingly.
V =Motion·to reopen case denied. And let adecree be entered that the
defendants Albert Sowles and Burton are chargeablefor the amount of
the lesson the loan of $36,000 to Edward A. Sowles; that an account