Broadcast Music v. Havana Madrid Restaurant Corp.
Decision Date | 27 May 1949 |
Docket Number | Docket 21309.,No. 249,249 |
Citation | 175 F.2d 77 |
Parties | BROADCAST MUSIC, Inc., et al. v. HAVANA MADRID RESTAURANT CORPORATION. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Before L. HAND, Chief Judge, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs contend that, as the testimony of the witness Castro was uncontradicted, unimpeached by anything appearing in the record, and not inherently improbable, the trial judge was obliged to accept it as true, and that therefore the judge's findings are "clearly erroneous." We cannot agree.
Whether the so-called "uncontradicted testimony" rule has been adopted by the Supreme Court we are not at all sure.1 Sponsors of that rule point to Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Martin, 283 U.S. 209, 51 S.Ct. 453, 456, 75 L.Ed. 983. But there the Court was at pains to explain that the testimony of the witness — not as to something he did, saw or heard on a specific occasion, but as to what, in ordinary circumstances, was a reasonable time for delivery of a shipment by a railroad company — was "so completely corroborated by the undisputed facts * * * as to put it beyond the reach of a fair doubt." The rule, absent such qualifications, has been rejected in several states,2 and has little to commend it rationally.3 For the demeanor of an orally-testifying witness is "always assumed to be in evidence."4 It is "wordless language." The liar's story may seem uncontradicted to one who merely reads it, yet it may be "contradicted" in the trial court by his manner, his intonations, his grimaces, his gestures, and the like — all matters which "cold print does not preserve" and which constitute "lost evidence" so far as an upper court is concerned.5 For such a court, it has been said, even if it were called a "rehearing court," is not a "reseeing court."6 only were we to have "talking movies" of trials could it be otherwise. A 7 It resembles a pressed flower. The witness' demeanor, not apparent in the record, may alone have "impeached" him.8 The alleged "rule," if taken literally, would return us to the practice of "trial by deposition," which common-law procedure rejected and which, in recent years, has been rejected in federal noncommon law trials as well.9
Without doubt, the result of our procedure is to vest the trial judge with immense power not subject to correction even if misused: His estimate of an orally testifying witness' credibility may stem from the trial judge's application of an absurd rule-of-thumb, such as that when a witness wipes his hands during his testimony, unquestionably he is lying;10 but, unless the judge reveals of record that he used such an irrational test of credibility, an upper court can do nothing to correct his error. We thus have what Tourtoulon called the "sovereignty" of the trial judge. Demeanor, to be sure, is no infallible guide to reliability of testimony; yet, as matters now stand, it is one of the best guides available.
We shall, however, assume, arguendo, that the rule prevails in the federal courts. Even so, it will not avail plaintiffs. For among the exceptions to the rule is this: It is inapposite if the witness has an "interest."11 The mere fact that he is an ordinary employee may not be enough to show such an interest where, as in the Chesapeake & Ohio case, his testimony is "completely corroborated by the undisputed facts." But here the witness was not only a general employee of the plaintiff, Peer International Corp., sole owner of the copyrights to seven of the songs, but he had been specifically requested by the plaintiff, Broadcast Music, Inc. (the exclusive licensee of the copyrights), to act as a sort of detective in obtaining the very evidence as to which he testified. The trial judge correctly said that such a witness is "interested." Hostetter v. Bower, C. C., 74 F. 235; Hennessy v. Wine Growers' Association, D. C., 212 F. 308, 310. As Castro's testimony had no corroboration, this case comes within the "interest" exception to the rule. We may not, then, disregard the trial judge's finding of fact based obviously on his disbelief of the testimony on which plaintiffs rely.12
It is suggested that the judge believed Castro but refused to accept his testimony solely because it was not corroborated. We do not so read the judge's opinion. We think he had the "uncontradicted witness" rule in mind, and, accordingly, pointed to the witness' interest and to the lack of corroboration in order to bring the case within the exception. Plaintiffs urge that some of the other reasons assigned by the judge are unsound. We need not consider whether or not that is true, for we think it enough that he gave a sound reason.13
Affirmed.
2 See 8 A.L.R. 796, Annotations.
Perhaps, at any rate, it is inapplicable to the findings of a trial judge in a juryless case. Cf. Golden Eagle Farm Products v. Approved Hydrating Co., 2 Cir., 147 F.2d 359, 360, Note 1; Cohen v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 148 F.2d 336, 337; Railway Mail Association v. Chamberlin, 8 Cir., 148 F.2d 206, 207; 2 Collier on Bankruptcy (14th Ed.) 966 (1948 Supp.) note 26, commenting on Matter of New Style Hat Mfg. Co., D.C., 43 F.Supp. 122.
3 A somewhat cynical commentator has said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Meiner v. Ford Motor Co.
...neither the substance nor the flavor of the fruit before it was drived.' It resembles a pressed flower.' (Broadcast Music v. Havana Madrid Restaurant Corp., 2 Cir., 175 F.2d 77, 80.) 'The cold record cannot give the look or manner of the witnesses; their hesitations, their doubts, their var......
-
Morris v. US, 96-CF-610.
...a dehydrated peach; it has neither the substance nor the flavor of the fruit before it was dried. Broadcast Music Inc. v. Havana Madrid Restaurant Corp., 175 F.2d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 1949) (quoting ULMAN, THE JUDGE TAKES THE STAND 267 The applicable standard of review reflects these realities. ......
-
Wabash Corp. v. Ross Electric Corp.
...is virtually unreviewable.51 Accordingly, this discretion has been called his "sovereignty." See, e. g., Broadcast Music Co. v. Havana Madrid Restaurant Co., 2 Cir., 175 F.2d 77; Orvis v. Higgins, 2 Cir., 180 F.2d 537. In such a case, says Stephen, the trial judge's "task is to infer, from ......
-
Herbert v. Riddell
...Rule 7(h). Proper orders will be entered in each of the three cases. 1 26 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1141. 2 Broadcast Music, Inc., v. Havana Madrid Restaurant Corp., 2 Cir., 1949, 175 F.2d 77, 79-80; Grace Bros. v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 1949, 173 F.2d 170, 171, 173-174; and see, United States v. United......