|In court? Need assistance? Jurisdictionary|
|Your Own Credit Repair Business|
Topic: Keely Chronology Stack
Section: Keely to Divulge the Secret
Table of Contents to this Topic
KEELY TO DIVULGE THE SECRET.
KEELY MUST EXPLAIN THE WORKING OF HIS "MOTOR."
PHILADELPHIA, March 17.-Keely's secret of the manipulations of his mysterious motor which he has guarded so securely for many years in spite of the efforts for disclosure made by dissatisfied stockholders of the motor company, is at last to be divulged. To-day Judge Finlatter handed down the opinion of the court in the suit brought by Mennett G. Wilson, who claime to hold an assignment of Keely's motor invention, made to him in 1868, which grants an order for the inspection of all the motor machine made by Keely, and compels him to explain the theories of their workings to Wilson and such experts as may be named with in a few days. Lawyer William C. Stawbridge, the Patent Attorney, who for the National Government conducted its famous suits against the Bell Telephone Company for the annuiments of its patents, will, as Wilson's counsel, present to the court for its approvel an order prescribing the method of inspection.
Mr. Strawbridge says the order which is being now prepared for the consideration and approvel of the court will have for its purpose the enabiling of Wilson to make out, if the facts so warranted, the allegations of his bill of complaint as to the identity of the motor of 1869 with the motor of the present day, and for the further object of determining the extent of Wilson's ownership under the assignment of partnership between him and Keely. In other words, the order will be such a one as the cours in its opinion says "is necessary for an intelligent consideration of the rights of the parties."
In his opinion Judge Finlatter says: "The defendant has in no way stated what the principle and machine were which he assigned to plaintiff. He is the only one who could give any information upon this subject and enable us to judge corredtly between the contradictory statements of the parties. This information would either corroborate him or corrobarate theplaintiff. He has withheld it and he may no complain if we are compelled thereby to draw inferences unfavorable to his assertions.
"In this case we find it impossible to determine from the affidavits and arguments of counsel what the principle and machine assigned to plaintiff may be in construction, operation, or results. We know a little more of the Keely motor in this respect, but even that is vague and indefinite. The examination is therefore necessary for an intelligent consideration of the right of the parties. It may also determine this proceeding, and can be made without injury to the right of any one interested."