FINDING NO. 62 No officer, agent, employee, or attorney of Universal had any knowledge of Kaufman's loan to Stokley at the time it was made. Affirmed except as to Kaufman. ANSWER FINDING No. 63 At the time of the Stokley loan Judge Buffington had not learned that Kaufman was counsel for Universal. Affirmed. ANSWER FINDING NO. 64 Judge Buffington first learned that Kaufman had been retained by Universal through newspaper accounts of this investigation. ANSWER Affirmed. FINDING NO. 65 At the time of the Stokley loan Davis had not learned that Kaufman was counsel for Universal. ANSWER Refused. The evidence convinces me that Davis did know that Kaufman was counsel for Universal prior to the decision of the case. FINDING No. 66 Davis first learned that Kaufman had been retained by Universal at the time of the first criminal trial in 1941. ANSWER Refused. FINDING NO. 67 At the time of the Stokley loan, Kaufman was counsel of record in at least two cases which were then pending before the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Universal was not a party to or interested in either case. ANSWER Affirmed. FINDING NO. 68 Both cases, which were pending at the time Kaufman made the loan to Stokley, were decided in favor of Kaufman with Davis writing the opinions and with Thompson dissenting in both cases. ANSWER Affirmed. FINDING NO. 69 Both cases were ultimately reversed, one by the Supreme Court and the other by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit by affirming a contrary holding by the District Court after a retrial. Affirmed. ANSWER FINDING NO. 70 Subsequent to Kaufman's loan to Stokley and in the spring of 1936, Davis loaned Stokley $4,000 to compromise an $8,000 claim of the Eustis Packing Company, and took as security a deed covering property other than that which had been deeded to Kaufman. Affirmed. ANSWER FINDING NO. 71 Kaufman was unaware of the loan made by Davis to Stokley. Affirmed. ANSWER FINDING NO. 72 At the time Davis loaned Stokley $4,000 and constantly thereafter, Davis urged Stokley to repay his loan as quickly as possible. ANSWER Affirmed. FINDING NO. 73 Stokley has paid to Davis $3,000 on account of the $4,000 principal of Davis' loan, leaving a balance of $1,000 principal and much accumulated interest still unpaid. ANSWER I refuse this request as not an accurate statement of the account between Davis and Stokley. FINDING No. 74 Davis applied all money received from Stokley to principal and interest on Davis' $4,000 loan to Stokley. ANSWER Refused. Davis testified in the proceedings before me that he had so applied the money, but the contemporary evidence shows that some of it was received by him as interest on the $10,000 loan, as more fully set forth in the body of my report. FINDING No. 75 Davis has never received any payments of interest or principal on the Kaufman loan to Stokley. ANSWER Refused. FINDING NO. 76 All payments on account of the loan by Kaufman were paid by Stokley directly to Kaufman. ANSWER Refused. FINDING No. 77 Kaufman has received $1,200 from Stokley on account of the interest on his loan. ANSWER Refused. I am not convinced that Kaufman received the amount mentioned. FINDING No. 78 Kaufman did not make the loan to Stokley for the purpose of influencing Davis' vote in the Root case. ANSWER It is true that Kaufman did not make the loan to Stokley for the purpose of influencing Davis to do something he had already done, but I have found that it was made at least in part to compensate him for the favorable action in the Root case which he had already taken. FINDING No. 79 The loan by Kaufman to Stokley did not in any way affect Judge Davis' vote in the Root case. ANSWER The loan, of course, could not affect Judge Davis' vote which had already been given; otherwise I answer this request as in the case of request No. 78. FINDING NO. 80 There was at no time during 1935, or at any time prior or subsequent thereto, a conspiracy among Kaufman, Davis, and Universal for any purpose whatsoever. Refused. ANSWER FINDING No. 81 Universal had other suits which it might have brought to trial in the Third Circuit in about the year 1936. It could have pressed the Crew-Levick case. ANSWER Affirmed. FINDING No. 82 Universal did not press the advantage of the Root decision by pushing other litigation in the Third Circuit in 1935 and 1936. ANSWER Affirmed. FINDING No. 83 After certiorari had been denied in the Root case, Universal agreed with Amici to try, in circuits other than the Third Circuit, cases involving the validity and infringement of the Dubbs and Egloff patents. There are no adverse parties with adverse interests in this proceeding. ANSWER Refused. While, technically, Amici may not be parties, they were acting in part on behalf of their clients and the interests of their clients and the interests of Universal were adverse. Requests for Conclusions of Law Submitted by Universal Oil Products Company CONCLUSION No. 1 The instant proceeding does not constitute a case or controversy within the meaning of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution. Refused. ANSWER CONCLUSION No. 2 The evidence establishes, as a matter of law, that there was no conspiracy between Universal, Kaufman, and Davis, or any persons acting for or on behalf of any of them to corrupt, obstruct, or distort justice in or in connection with the Root case. Refused. ANSWER CONCLUSION No. 3 There is no evidence of any conspiracy between Universal, Kaufman, and Davis, or any persons acting for or on behalf of any of them to corrupt, obstruct, or distort justice in or in connection with the Root case. ANSWER Refused. CONCLUSION No. 4 The evidence establishes, as a matter of law, that neither Universal, nor any person acting for or on its behalf, participated in any fraud, corruption, obstruction, or distortion of justice in or in connection with the Root case. ANSWER Refused. CONCLUSION No. 5 There is no evidence that Universal, or any person acting for or on its behalf, participated in any fraud, corruption, obstruction, or distortion of justice in or in connection with the Root case. Refused. ANSWER CONCLUSION No. 6 The evidence in this proceeding is, as a matter of law, insufficient to warrant any inference of fraud, corruption, obstruction, or distortion of justice in or in connection with the Root case. ANSWER Refused. CONCLUSION No. 7 The evidence establishes, as a matter of law, that there were no improper relationship or dealings of any nature whatsoever between Universal, Kaufman, and Davis in or in connction with the Root case. ANSWER Refused. CONCLUSION No. 8 The evidence is, as a matter of law, insufficient to warrant any inference of improper relationship or dealings of any nature whatsoever between Universal, Kaufman, and Davis in or in connection with the Root case. Evidence of any relationship or dealings between Davis, Kaufman, and Fox in 1936 is, as a matter of law, incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial in this proceeding. ANSWER Refused. CONCLUSION No. 10 Evidence of any relationship or dealings between Davis and Kaufman from 1936 to 1938 is, as a matter of law, incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial in this proceeding. Refused. ANSWER CONCLUSION No. 11 There is, as a matter of law, no evidence of a corrupt and illicit combination, between Davis and Kaufman in 1935, to obstruct justice. Refused. ANSWER CONCLUSION No. 12 There is, as a matter of law, no evidence of a corrupt and illicit combination, between Davis and Kaufman from 1936 to 1938 to obstruct justice. Refused. ANSWER CONCLUSION NO. 13 The Steedle memorandum, as a matter of law, is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial in this proceeding. ANSWER As I have now excluded the Steedle memorandum, it is unnecessary to answer this request. CONCLUSION No. 14 The judgments of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the Root case are valid and not tainted with fraud, corruption, obstruction, or distortion of justice. Refused. ANSWER MEMORANDUM OPINION IN RE OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY IN EVIDENCE OF THE STEEDLE MEMORANDUM Amici offered a memorandum (R. 3690), hereinafter referred to as the Steedle memorandum, as evidence of the facts stated therein, and counsel have asked me to rule upon its admissibility at this time prior to the conclusion of the testimony. This memorandum consists of eight typewritten sheets fastened together with an eyelet, bearing on the margin of each sheet the printed words "Robert E. Steedle, Counsellor-at-Law, Atlantic City, N. J." Mr. Steedle was a Referee in Bankruptcy with offices in Atlantic City; he died in the spring of 1937. After his death the memorandum was found in his safe in an official envelope for use by him as Referee in Bankruptcy, marked on the outside in typewriting with the words "Robert E. Steedle-Personal." It was unsigned. The memorandum is a record of certain incidents stated therein to have occurred between the dates of May 2, 1936, and October 4, 1936, which, if believed, would indicate that Morgan S. Kaufman and Judge J. Warren Davis were attempting to influence Mr. Steedle improperly in the discharge of his duty as a Referee in Bankruptcy, particularly in relation to the bankruptcy proceedings of one William ΕΟΣ. Counsel for Universal object to the admission in evidence of this memorandum on four grounds, which are stated as follows: First. Its authenticity has not been established; Second. It is not admissible either under the provisions of the Judicial Code, 28 USCA § 695, or 28 Pennsylvania Statutes Annotated, § 91 (b); Third. It is not admissible under the exception to the hearsay rule applying to records maintained by a public official; and Fourth. It is not admissible as a part of the res gestae. Amici contend that the authenticity of the memorandum has been established and that it is admissible either as a part of the res gestae or as an exception to the hearsay rule. On the question of the authenticity of the memorandum, I find that it has been sufficiently proven and identified. Three witnesses testified that in the summer or early autumn of 1936, Mr. Steedle had shown them this memorandum as a recital of incidents which he apparently thought should be recorded in some permanent form. One of these, his secretary, testified that the memorandum con |