Appendix — Ex parte Phillips
Supreme Court brief1943
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
United States Circuit Court of Appeals
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.
THE GORDON FORM LATHE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee,
VS.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant.
Equity No. 4564.
AppraL From
Tue District Court oF THE UNITED SraTEs,
Eastern District or Micuican,
SovuTHeErN Division.
TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD.
VOLUME III.
Defendant’s Record (Continued),
Appendix to Record and Appeal Papers.
LecHER, MicuaEL, Wuyte & Spoun,
110 East Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
Ricuey & Watts,
Union Commerce Bldg., Cleveland, Ohio,
Swan, Frye & Harpesty,
Ford Bldg., Detroit, Michigan,
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant and
Cross-Appellee.
Bopman, LoncLey, Bocie, Mippteton & Far ey,
1400 Buhl Bldg., Detroit, Michigan,
Cooper, Kerr & Dunuam,
Woolworth Bldg., 233 Broadway,
New York, New York,
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee and
Cross-A ppellant.
INDEX.
VOLUME I.
Trial Papers, Plaintiff’s Record and Part of
Defendant’s Record.
Caption ....eeceeeecececeecrecececencrerecscceceeeesess
Decree on Mandate ........-.eeeeeeeeeecreeeeneneerseres
Report of Special Master......---.+++eeeeererereeeeeees
I. Nature of Invention and History of Litigation and
of Defendant’s Use of Machinery............-+++-
Il. Claims of Parties...........0:eee eee eeeeeereceee
III. Accounting Period, and Production of Shafts on In-
fringing Machines: Question of Notice............
A. Beginning of Period..........-.e0++eeeeeeeee
B. Production of Camshafts and End of Accounting
WOE ccccccvccccccvcvcceveccescssecsvesees
WY, Wee. cccccceccoccdcetecedesesvesesseseoessnes
A. Profits from Infringement.............++++0+:
1. Standard of Comparison............++++++-
a. Standard for Model A Shaft............
(1) Pioch and Modified Walcott Machines
(2) Westinghouse Lathe ............---
(3) Ford Cam Shaper...........++e+0+:
b. Standard for Tractor Shaft.............
ec. Effect of Choice of Incorrect Standard...
2. Savings from Use of Infringing Machines...
a. Savings or Loss in Other Operations:
Straightening .........cccccccccccecess
b. Savings in Cam-Roughing Operation.....
(1) Direct Labor Savings...............
I
(a) Speeds of Production on Model T
BNE cccccacccececcesoceceeess
(b) Speeds of Production on Model A
EE bb0sbcsuscceskuneseseten
RES sdb bine eevewn dbs weenteus
(2) Other Savings: Overhead or Burden
(3) Offset of Loss from Scrapping Shap-
OE Naive neueek sediceeoensavecess
3. Apportionment of Profits..................
V. Damages: Reasonable Royalty...................
A. Conditions to Assessment of Reasonable Royalty
Be OE GE GING oc vi cccsciccccccsccerceses
VI. Questions of Clean Hands and of Increase of Re-
ST io 54040564 60605055 54654000646000008000%0
Bee ED oo vec sbckescseveeseevececeessses
B. Increase of Recovery.............eeeeeeeeeees
I cic cacy cca tased oeneceesiuseseeees
Schedule A. Production of Camshafts on Infringing Ma-
Te ie ON a CCE ele os et iueuacaaneees
Schedule B. Proration of Production on Camshafts be-
tween Pioch and Walcott Machines, May 14, 1930 to
March 15, 1931, inclusive...........................
Schedule C. Comparative Costs on Cam-Roughing Op-
eration with Walcott Lathes and Standards of Com-
ES ep eet cuinks ch sSaraised ese esaneans
Clerk’s Notice of the Filing of the Master’s Report........
Plaintiff’s Objections to Master’s Report.................
Exceptions of Defendant to the Report of the Special Master
Motion for Action Upon Master’s Report and Objections
ME a haderendh had cade u¥s des seersdosastsioewss
94
97
_—
Schedule Io... .ssseeececccececcccceneeesscesseseses 115
Schedule IL ......cecceeseececececereeeeeseenseeaes 115
Schedule TIL .....cccccececeeeeeecereeeeeeeeeeeenees 115
Schedule IV ....sccccceceeceecercencteveresesereees 115
Notice of Motion for Action Upon Master’s Report........ 117
Opinion of the Hon. Arthur J. Tuttle, District Judge, on the
Objections to the Master’s Report........+++++++++++: 118
Master’s Order for Statement of Account, dated July 6, 1937 132
Exhibit A—Defendant’s Statement of Account, filed Septem-
ber 27, 1937 ....csccccecceccerecrceseressseeeeeneees 138
Exhibit 7. Operation Sheet No. 1.......+.--eeeeeeees 151
Operation Sheet No. 2..........0000eeeee: 152
Operation Sheet No. 3...........60000eees 153
Oneration Sheet No. 4........-.000000 005: 154
Operation Sheet No. 5.........-..5000 005: 155
Exhibit 10. Material Price Card No. 1................ 16
Material Price Card No. 2..............-- 457
Exhibit 11. Computation of Certain Items of Cost of
Gordon Lathe Operation on Tractor Cam-
GRATED Se icccccccsctsdccneedsevesseccress 158
Exhibit 12. Computation of Certain Costs Involved in
Rough Grinding Operation on Tractor Cam-
shafts by Landis 10 x 36 Grinders during
Period July 1, 1925 to January 1, 1928..... 160
Exhibit B—Amendment to Defendant’s Statement of Ac-
count, verified December 31, 1937.........-.2--eeeeees 161
Ptf. Ree. Vol. III beginning line 18, page 29 of Type-
written Transcript (Mr. Spohn)............+++++- 166
Master’s Order for Statement of Account, dated October 29,
SE db biweene ndedenen0dseseeesinsseesenenucnendeete 169
Exhibit C—Defendant’s Further Statement of Account,
Gated Decommbor Sl, 1G67 0. ccccccccccccccocccccceces 171
Ptf. Rec. Vol. III from page 34, line 26 to page 37, line 3
inclusive of Typewritten Transcript (Mr. Spohn).. 193
Ill
TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY
(Designated by both Plaintiff and Defendant).
INNS ckcccaccdécdévoccaddusecescuvescusdudeosess 195
PLAINTIFF’S RECORD.
Frep M. Hovis (Defendant’s Witness) :
Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn..................... 195
Cross Examination by Mr. Farley.................... 208
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn.................. 212
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Farley................. 214
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn.................. 216
Harotp M. Woenrve (Defendant’s Witness) :
Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn..................... 216
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn.................. 220
Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn..................... 227
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley................. 239
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn.................. 242
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley................. 244
Frep M. Hovis (Recalled) :
Cross Examination by Mr. Spobn..................... 244
Harotp M. Woeurte (Recalled) :
Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn..................... 246
Cross Examination by Mr. Farley.................... 249
Norman R. Scovitt (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................... 253
Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn..................6. 254
Topp L. Moise (Plaintiff’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Spohn
Cross Examination by Mr. Farley....................
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Spohn
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Farley
eee eee ee eeeeeeeeeene
IV
SSS
Cuarces Gorvon (Plaintiff’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Spohn............+000000s 275
Cross Examination by Mr. Farley...........++++e+0+s 280
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Spohn.............++++ 282
Cross Examination by Mr. Farley..............++000+ 283
Lyte E. Broventow (Plaintiff’s Witness) :
Direct* Examination by Mr. Spohn............-.+++++ 291
Howarp Jowes (Plaintiff’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Spolin...........+++++0005 296
Cross Examination by Mr. Farley...........-+++++0+: 300
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Spohn...............+++ 302
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Farley...............+.- 303
Mues G. Stonrxer (Plaintiff’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Spohn..............++0++- 304
Cross Examination by Mr. Farley.............++e00+: 308
DEFENDANT’S RECORD.
Cuartes Gorpon (Plaintiff’s Witness) :
Cross Examination by Mr. Farley..............+ee+0- 312
Topp L. Morse (Recalled) (Plaintiff’s Witness) :
Cross Examination by Mr. Farley..............0+.6+. 423
* The Examination of Lyle E. Broughton by Mr. Spohn, appearing on
page 291, was incorrectly stated in the Typewritten Transcript. It should
be ‘‘Direct’’ instead of ‘‘Cross.’’
VOLUME II.
Defendant’s Record (Continued).
Morris E. Suawkey (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................... 427
Spencer W. Lissy (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................... 436
Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn..................... 444
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley................. 454
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn.................. 457
Morris FE. SHawkey (Recalled) (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................... 461
Mike Kuopsic (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................... 464
Raupu T. Myers (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................... 481
Victor F. Marentette (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................... 486
Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn..................-- 493
A. M. Wineu (Defendant’s Witness) :
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley................. 495
Cares Gorpon (Plaintiff’s Witness) :
Cross Examination by Mr. Farley.................... 511
Tueopore R. Daut (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................... 512
Georce W. Smita, Jr. (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................... 526
ALBERT APTEKAR (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................... 529
Cross Examination by Mr. Michael................... 545
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley................. 599
VI
PRIS ELE. FOES BELG PLEYEL IEA COALS Cf SF ME A FOIL OSD
2 *
Wituiam D. Hunt (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.........-.-++-++++5 559
Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn..........--. veetaetes 564
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley...........-++++: 567
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn............-++++: 567
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley............+-++- 567
Henry G. Pirurxcer (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.............-+0-++5 568
Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn............--+++005 579
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley..............+-- 585
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn.............++++- 586
Joun L. Scumipt (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.............+--+++: 588
Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn......... Pivad anne es 605
Rupy Exnruarp Herkvrotz (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley............22..-++- 606
Wii F. Piocn (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley...............0.++: 632
Cross Examination by Mr. Michael...............+.+.. 663
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley................ 697
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Michael................ 722
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley...............-. 727
Nets Boresen (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley 728
a
Auanson P. Brusu (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley......... Saebanne eas 752
Cross Examination by Mr. Michael................... 801
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley......... ere 813
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Michael
VII
Ervin Frankcuts (Defendant's Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................
Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn...................
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn..................
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn..................
JosepH Henry AcuTen (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley....................
Cross Examination by Mr. Michael...................
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................
Frep Hovis (Recalled) (Defendant’s Witness) :
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn..................
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn..................
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn..................
VIII
EDL ETNIES EE EID LESION PINYIN PBT LE IIIA EE LEA SS MDD ABET EBM IERO E WO Y
y 2 pee tw
VOLUME III.
Defendant’s Record (Continued),
Appendix to Record and Appeal Papers.
Hiroto W. Hoceran (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley................++.-
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley...............-.
Pierce Atpert Weyt (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................+--
Cross Examination by Mr. Michael...................
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Michael................
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Michael................
James McEvoy (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley...................-
Cross Examination by Mr. Michael...................
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................
Apert ApTekar (Recalled) (Defendant’s Witness) :
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn..................
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Michael................
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Michael................
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................
I. Josepu Fartey (Defendant’s Witness) :
ee SE cL aaa venncueuneeasvkeensonssesaues
Cross Examination by Mr. Michael...................
Joun W. Micnact (Plaintiff’s Witness) :
Pe er caren dees wheres eeabenrvebasiee
Cross Examination by Mr. Farley....................
Norman R. Scovitzt (Defendant’s Witness) :
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley
oe eee eee eee eee eoe
Ix
Harotp M. Woennrie (Defendant’s Witness) :
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................
Wituram F. Procu (Defendant’s Witness) :
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Fariey.................
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Michael................ 1055
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley................. 1059
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley................-. 1060
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Michael................ 1061
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley................- 1063
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Michael................ 1063
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley................-. 1063
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Michael................ 1064
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley................. 1064
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Michael................ 1065
Harotp M. Woenr.e (Defendant’s Witness) :
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley................. 1065
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn.................. 1071
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley................. 1080
Donautp M. Russeuy (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................... 1082
Harotp M. Woenrze (Defendant’s Witness) :
RTE Wt TD I hk coc cccccanccsacvcaceaess 1094
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley................. 1095
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn.................. 1096
ALEXANDER OBERHOFFKEN (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................... 1097
Cross Examination by Mr. Michael................... 1114
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley................. 1122
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Michael................ 1124
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley................. 1126
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Michael................ 1127
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley................. 1129
x
Hennine Ounrn (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley............+....-::
Cross Examination by Mr. Michael................---
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.............-- ;
CuarLes Hasovicn (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley...............-+065
Cross Examination by Mr. Michael...............---5
Apert Kipta (Defendant’s Witness) :
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley................008-
Cross Examination by Mr. Michael...................
Wituiam D. Hunt (Reealled) (Defendant’s Witness) :
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley................-.
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Michael................
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.................
CuarLes Gorpon (Recalled) (Plaintiff’s Witness) :
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Michael................
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Farley.................
Topp L. Moise (Recalled) (Plaintiff’s Witness) :
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Spohn.................
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Farley.................
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Spohn.................
xI
APPENDIX
TO TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD
Designated Portion of the Testimony of the Witnesses
Otto H. Schultz, Frank Steinke, Bert Weisel, William
Cunningham, and Charles Gordon from Plaintiff’s Exhibit
14—Patent Office Record, Interference No. 47,200—Her-
man W. Melling vs. Charles Gordon and Alfred Redlin.
Orto H. Scuvttz:
Q. 1, page 132, to and including Q. 22 and Answer, page
136:
Direct Examination by Mr. Earl.................
Q. 45, page 140, to and including Q. 72 and Answer 145:
Direct Examination by Mr. Harl...............--.
Bert WEISEL:
Q. 1, page 190, to and including Q. 55 and Answer, page
198:
Direct Examination by Mr. Earl..................
XQ. 84 and Answer, page 203:
Cross Examination by Mr. Dennett
XQ. 100, page 205, to and including XQ. 102 and Answer,
page 206:
Cross Examination by Mr. Dennett...............
XQs. 115 and 116 and Answers, page 210:
Cross Examination by Mr. Dennett
cee eee eee eee eee
XQ. 121, page 211, to and including RDQ. 150 and An-
swer, page 219:
Cross Examination by Mr. Dennett
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Earl...............
RDQs. 153 and 154 and Answers, page 220:
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Earl..............
RDQ. 166, page 222, to and including RDQ. 177 and An-
swer, page 224:
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Earl
OVC CREP BCC HCO EO
oe eee ee eee eee ee
XII
1261
1264
1268
1274
RDQ. 183, page 224 to and including RXQ. 193 and An-
swer, page 226:
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Earl...........---
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Dennett............
RRDQ. 207 and Answer, page 229:
Re-Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Earl...........
Frank STEINKE:
Q. 1, page 230, to and including RDQ. 66 and Answer,
page 238:
Direct Examination by Mr. Earl.................
Cross Examination by Mr. Dennett...............
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Earl..............
Wititiam CUNNINGHAM:
Q. — 288, to and including Q. 16 and Answer, page
Direct Examination by Mr. Earl..................
XQ. 19, page 293, to and including XQ. 43 and Answer,
page 298:
Cross Examination by Mr. Dennett
RDQ. 44 and Answer, page 299:
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Earl...............
CuHarLeEs Gorpon:
Q. 56, page 402, to and including Q. 57 and Answer, page
403 :
Direct Examination by Mr. Dennett
Q. 66, page 405, to and including Q. 74 and Answer, page
409:
Direct Examination by Mr. Dennett
XQ. 188, page 441, to and including XQ. 190 and Answer,
page 442:
Cross Examination by Mr. Earl
XIII
1284
1284
1285
1286
1289
1291
1292
1295
1299
1300
1300
’
}
4
s
4
:
*
a
4
¥
4
*
ah im os poles: sd
Master's Report in National Tube Company v. Mark et al.,
Eaqnity NO. 49600... ccc eee e erences
Proceedings in Court............cccccececcceececeees
Proceedings Before the Master. .............. eee eee
DIN NED eve cecsccccscecceecevceneenseeeevees
The 1900 Order. ....cccccccccccccccccvececesscvcsens
Answers to Questions Referred.............-++++005+
et IN PIR eos cccccccceesescsenseoseusconsvens
BI oso pen vb der dre sa tsedesverervesesessequvsss
Advantages Derived by Defendant From and Through
EE TRVIITIONE ois cs cesesecnsctoveccunsvenes
a or ie eth wkk beet eeeeseasnaetseees
Special Damages ............cccceccecccssesesecoecs
NN icc cbc te cexesa Veer eneceeseveerederveresss
EN EN NE ELIE ETE eT ee Tee Tee Tee
Judge Sater’s Opinion on Exceptions to Master’s Report in
National Tube Company v. Mark et al., Equity No. 4360
Special Master’s Report, on Accounting of Profits, Opinion
and Order, and Opinion and Order on Standard of Com-
parison in O’Neal v. San Jose Canning Co., Equity No.
tet PEE Ae eae ae eee fore ee ee ee ee
Special Master’s Report on Accounting of Profits......
Peaster se CO GRE CGE. . occ sce tseecccecceveess
Special Master’s Opinion and Order on Standard of
SE ouch ceca tees oeny se 6gaN tO 06 e¥ e040 %0
Opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
in Gordon Form Lathe Co. v. Walcott Machine Co., No.
5511, Decided April 12, 1929, 32 Fed. (2d) 55..........
Opinion of the Cireuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
in Gordon Form Lathe Co. v. Ford Motor Co., Nos. 7363,
7364, Decided January 12, 1937, 87 Fed. (2d) 390.......
XIV
1344
1358
Final Judgment .........:c cece cece ee eee eee renee ees 1365
Notice of Appeal of Plaintiff............ 00sec ee eee eens 1369
Bond on Appeal of Plaintiff. ........... 00. ee eee eee eee eee 1370
Plaintiff’s Statement of Points To Be Urged on Appeal.... 1371
Notice of Appeal of Defendant............--+ +e ee eeeeeees 1373
Bond on Appeal of Defendant.............eeeeeeeee reece 1375
Defendant’s Statement of Points To Be Relied On Upon
Appeal under Rule 75(d) of Rules of Civil Procedure... 1376
Stipulation Re Waiver of Supersedeas Bond..............- 1379
Stipulation Concerning Number of Copies of Record to be
Filed on Appeal. .....cccssccccccccescevvesessccsees 1379
Stipulation Re Exhibits and Transcript of Record on Appeal
in Gordon v. Ford, Nos. 7363-4. ........ 000 eee cece eee 1380
Order Re Exhibits and Transcript of Record on Appeal in
Gordon v. Ford, Nos. TAGB-4. ...ccccccccceccssceveces 1381
Stipulated Designation of Contents of Plaintiff-Defendant
Composite Record on Appeal............eee eee ee eees 1382
Stipulation Extending Time to July 29, 1941............... 1399
Order Extending Time to July 29, 1941................005- 1399
Stipulation (filed July 21, 1941) Extending Time to Septem-
ber 27, 1941, and Approval of U.S. Circuit Court of Ap-
WOE cccccesevvscesccsexsneves@bevetousestsereeses 1400
Stipulation (filed September 24, 1941) Extending Time to
eee Bi, Besa c cccccecscsesscowaycsuvevssasseeess 1401
Stipulation Extending Time to November 26, 1941, and
Approval of U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals............ 1402
Centieeetin GF CHOU. cos cc cancqabvenveverscessevervssse ses 1403
XV
EXHIBIT
D.
E-1.
VOLUME IV.
Plaintiff’s Exhibits, Defendant’s Exhibits
and Main Record Exhibits.
PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBITS.
Cost Summary Card for A-6250 Camshaft covering
January and March 1930 and September and Oc-
PaGE
ee SD ccc cccagacdoovsesetarereaseaeneaacess 1404-5
Cost Summary Card for A-6250 Camshaft covering
May, August and October 1930 and March 1931... 1406-7
Cost Summary Card for A-6250 Camshaft covering
March, May and July 1929. (Same as Exhibit 6 in
MRE A) cc ccccccccccvsesesvcrevesnesetsesess 1408-9
Cost Summary Card for T-410 Camshaft covering
January to June 1923............ eee cece eee eeeee 1410
Cost Summary Card for T-410 Camshaft covering
July to November 1923........0..-eeeeeeeeeeeeee 1411
Cost Summary Card for T-410 Camshaft covering
January to June 1924.......... eee cece cece cence 1412
Cost Summary Card for T-410 Camshaft covering
July to November 1924. .........eeeeeeeeeeeeeees 1413
Cost Summary Card for T-410 Camshaft covering
April to September 1925..........::ee cece eeeeees 1414
Cost Summary Card for T-410 Camshaft covering
October to November 1925.........-.-e cess eeeees 1415
Cost Summary Card for T-410 Camshaft covering
January 1926 to October 1929............---e0es 1416-17
Cost Summary Card for T-410 Camshaft covering
Peewee THEE cc cccrecscdeucencsccsnccrsesseses 1418
Cost Summary Card for T-410 Camshaft covering
to . PPPrePrrrrrrrrTr rrr rrr rrr rer rete e 1419
Cost Summary Card for A-6250 Camshaft covering
August 1928 to January 1929
XVII
1420-21
EXHIBIT Pace
F-10. Cost Summary Card for A-6250 Camshaft covering
December 1927 to June 1928..............00000. 1422-23
F-11. Cost Summary Card for F-446 Camshaft covering
STE CS TE ER in v0.62 ee skin va dres ceensixe 1424
F-12. Cost Summary Card for F-446 Camshaft covering
October to November 1926.......:ccccccccvccecess 1425
F-13. Cost Summary Card for F-446 Camshaft covering
January 1926 to March 1928................005. 1426-27
H-1. Production Cost Record for T-410 Camshaft cover-
SOR TRO DE io 05S ceVcn cee eeeinsc leeetedis 1428
L-1 to L-3. Pages from note book kept by witness Spencer
We BEOUN .ccdendesvmeameueserecesvesbneenceeen 1429-31
M. Operation Sheet compiled from notations appearing
in Exhibit L. (Same as Exhibit 13 attached to Ex-
eee OP vincdewceveccsaeesesistias saeco 1432-33
N. Operation Sheet for T-410 Camshaft dated 10-8-24.
(Same as Exhibit 14 attached to Exhibit C)..... 1434-35
O. Correspondence between Ford Motor Company and
Jackson Shaper Company..............sseeeee- 1436-63
P-1 to P-14. Ford Work Orders for Repairs to Melling
MMUIOE. oo vesuncedveravnavessedtaliiiadl des 1464-70
Q. Inventory card covering Ford Camshaft Shaper
ICTED 660048 Kees espenes ccassesceesdeseradeenss 1471
R. Inventory card covering Ford Camshaft Shaper
QEDGED io rsccesddecesechcousncecdsacacenvcedeess 1472
S. Inventory card covering Ford Camshaft Shaper
ERTS 6c cceciestciavebedacsdeneteneleueien, 1473
W-1 to W-14. Study of operation of Melling Lathes. .. .1474-87
X-1. Productive Labor and Overhead for Department 410
GED iscareseusvevessigeaseurarwanesnbuenlcsa 1488
-2. Same—continued to 2-28-31 .............ece cece 1489
X-3. Productive Labor and Overhead for F-446 Camshaft
Machining 6-1-25 to 3-31-28 .............cccccceee 1490
XVIII
PAGE
EXHIBIT
Y-1. Inventory Card covering Melling Cam Turning
Lathe Ford SOGGGS ow ccccccccccccscccceseveses 1491- 2
7-3. Plaintiff’s statement of account............... 1493-1513
Z-4. Plaintiff’s schedule showing computation of depre-
ciation on Model T type cam shapers and Melling
Ce ROUND coceveccccveccoscsspbbeceescionves 1514-16
Z-5. Plaintiff’s compilation of depreciation cost on Model
T Cam Shapers and Melling Cam Lathes......... 1517-18
Z-6. Plaintiff’s computation of Maintenance and Over-
RAGE TEROUED oc csccccscvececeveeceoecesesounes 1519-22
Z-7. Plaintiff’s computation of Cost of Tools......... 1523-24
CC. Telegram dated 11-18-30 addressed to Ford Motor
COE ccccccscrvcccsscsucseevesesveseeseedes 1525
DO, ‘Febery Gated WR Sae oc vecccvcccvsccvccvecscss 1526
GG. Release to White Motor Company from infringe-
ment of Gordon patent. (Included in Exhibit RR). 1540
HH. Letter of White Motor Company to Mr. John W.
Michael dated 12-24-29. (Included in Exhibit RR). 1532
RR. Gordon Form Lathe Company agreement file..... 1527-57
DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS.
209. Copy of U. S. Patent No. 1,655,655 of January 10,
1928 to Herman W. Melling...........ceceseees 1558-66
217 to 222. Ford Purchase Orders for Melling Cam Turn-
Be BEDS sc cesncévccetaccessecededenetevsens 1567-73
232. White Motor Company Departmental Correspond-
GOD GODOT Tai e cckcvsacecvcetescessecscestes 1574
233. Samo—dated 1-29-90 .....ccccccsccsecsccvseceees 1575
254. Ford Motor Company print dated 11-17-13 showing
front view of construction of original Ford Cam
Shaper with attachment superimposed in yellow.... 1576
cn So Oe a de err are 1577
EXHIBIT
Pace
257. Ford assembly print showing attachment for use in
shaping Model A Camshafts...............000005 1578
258. Same—sub-assembly ............cceeecccceeeeees 1579
259. Same—showing removal of tools numbers 1 and 5.. 1580
263. Sketch drawn by witness Pioch.................. 1581
264. Letter of Mr. Pioch to Mr. Farley dated 11-2-38.... 1582
266. Computation by witness Pioch.................... 1583
268. Print Camshaft Shaping Machine Oberhoffken de-
sign—layout showing ‘‘tools to cut in both direc-
tions—speeds being equal’’................e sees 1584
269. Same—Layout to show individual relief of tools on
ECTS IT TT CTT TET OTT TOTTTee 1585
272. Sketch by witness Brush showing cutting action of
SER veo Gen ven seackeeedecu dh veaeuten vs 1586
273. Same—showing cutting action of Melling Tool..... 1587
276. Brush sketch of two way cuts.............0.0000 1588
281. Operation Sheet for T-410 Camshaft dated 12-21-27.
(Same as Exhibit 15 in Exhibit C).............. 1589-90
289 (1 to 10). Engineering Record of T-410 Camshaft,
og RS Peers. Pr ererres siti eee 1591-95
290 (1 to 13). Same—Finished Size ............... 1596-1602
291 (1 to 3). Engineering Record for A-6250 Camshaft,
IE TNE ocho 00s 00005406504 00usecdxckass 1602-03
292 (1 to 4). Same—Finished Size ................. 1604-05
293. Ford print 9-Z-32, Shaper Tool................... 1606
294. Ford print 9-Z-215, Melling Tool................. 1607
295. Letter of witness Pioch dated 2-1-39 re: Surface
ene Gy GE SHOE a os nceecunesiicasecvees 1608-09
296. Sample Ford Purchase Order ................... 1610
297.
Print of Ford Camshaft A-6250-Al............... 1611
xx
LA NARESH LLG CoP PED SENT SME REM DAR PAU PALS PRS PLD PPI ALR De) MRE TEM SD PAL
=a
EXHIBIT
299.
301.
302.
304.
305.
306.
307.
308.
RE Roney ere gay es erwre
PaGE
298 (1 to 6). Engineering Record Fordson Tractor Cam-
shaft, Forging and Finished Size............... 1612-14
Summary of Ford Tractor Production............ 1615
Defendant’s substitute pages for plaintiff’s state-
ment of account Exhibit Z-3 making 3 changes. . . .1616-22
cs Se eases bans ensures kaass 1623-29
Pages from Ford Parts Price List, effective 2-1-31
EE Se ea 1630-33
Defendant’s computation of Comparative Direct
Labor Costs on F-446 Tractor Camshafts........ 1634-35
International Harvester Company Requisition for
Gordon Lathe dated 11-20-19.................000. 1636
International Harvester Company order for Gordon
ce aces eee keys aewie ne 1637
International Harvester Company installation of
machinery card covering ‘‘Gordon Std. Cam Turn-
ee eee ieee dy eve eis ssace eke eascses 1638
International Harvester Company disposition of
machinery card covering same ...............0.5. 1639
Copy U. S. Patent No. 1,512,995 of 10-28-24 to Her-
NS ht acoso cen 4k 500600 erodes eves 1640-47
Copy U. 8S. Patent No. 1,634,550 of 7-5-27 to Herman
ne G0 aS eis sais eds 6ée 0 ess cic. 1648-52
Print #C-2129 of Walcott Machine Company—
‘*Assembly of New Style Parallel Type Tool Head’’ 1653
Print #KT-530-A of Walcott Machine Company—
“*Manemnery Of Teel TOKE” «non. cccivcccccccevess 1654
XXI
MAIN RECORD EXHIBITS.
EXHIBIT Pace
> Copy of U. S. Patent No. 1,542,803 of 6-16-25 to
Chepn, Gemes O0 GE nic cde dutscincdave cessccese 1655-69
5. Amended Final Decree in Walcott case........ 1670-72
40. Notice of Infringement dated 7-1-25.............. 1673
41. Cuts only of Walcott Machine Company advertising
WONT occ ccncccccccuveevesecceuesecoevesers 1674-75
GD.. Re TAGE os ccc svecevevessssesvecesssenesees 1676-83
48. 1929 Notice of Infringement.................... 1684-86
52. Photograph of Ford Shaper 34 front view......... 1687
OR. Genep—<Cpend WW cu cccscccccsvecvetsctscccevess 1688
53-b. Illustrated chart of Ford Shaper tool movements
CE QUES si cceccteddvscdenceersvenseutevessdus 1689
55. Record re: delivery of Gordon machine to Ford.... 1690
56. Copy of Ford order for Gordon machine......... 1691-92
61. Affidavit of I. W. Kindall re: Ford Camshaft Shaper 1693
62. Ford Motor Company Print dated 5-18-15 showing
Ford Camshaft Shaper, front view............... 1694
CG ER WIN occ ck cccvccecctcnntscoaguescetss 1695
64. Walcott letter to Ford 7-30-29.................... 1696
71. Copy of General Motors-Gordon Company Agree-
ment. (Included in Exhibit RR)................ 1552-57
154-a, b, ec, d. Records produced by Ford in response to
CONS GUE casvavecvesvevevveséceséusencess 1697-1700
XXII
Harold W. Hogelan, Direct Examination 883
(1667) Harotp W. Hocetan was thereupon called as a
‘witness on behalf of the defendant herein, and having
been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.
Q. Where do you live, Mr. Hogelan? A. 2647 Alter
Road, Detroit.
Q. And, what is your occupation? A. I have charge
of the cost department.
Q. Of what company? A. Hudson Motor Car Com-
pany.
Q. What is the system used at Hudson Motor Car
Company for determining costs, and let us, in view of the
fact the proceedings here have to do with the production
of cam shafts, I wonder if you could teli the Court—you
are familiar with what a cam shaft is? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I wonder if you could tell the Court just how you
would go about in the Hudson Company establishing cost
on this particular piece, or a piece similar to the one I am
now showing you, which is a finished cam shaft for the
Ford model B car, and which is marked Defendant’s Ex-
hibit 33. A. You mean as a cost department head what
I would determine?
Q. Just what your particular system is at the Hudson
Company at the present time, and what it has been through
the years, insofar as establishing costs? A. The time
study department would give me a time study card, with
a complete cost of machining a cam shaft.
Q. Now, do you keep in your department separate
costs on all of the parts that go into the car? (1668) A. No,
sir.
Q. How do you, at Hudson’s, determine your figure of
cost? A. We figure our cost on the basis of an automo-
bile; complete automobile.
Q. And, do you keep from month to month the cost
of the separate parts, such as cam shafts? A. Unless the
time study price changed, we wouldn’t change the cost
of the car.
Q. Now, suppose you were asked right now as to the
cost in, let’s say, the month of December, 1927, we will say,
of a cam shaft, or producing a cam shaft at the Hudson
Motor Car Company; would you have any records avail-
884 Harold W. Hogelan, Direct Examination
able, or would records have been available for you to
find out what that cost was?
(1670) A. Yes, sir. We would have a cost of that cam
shaft in 1939, as what it cost us in 1927 for service price
only.
Q. For service price only? A. That is right.
Q. Now, what type of records, or what is your system
- at the Hudson Company for establishing costs in your de-
partment? A. Well, we know what we pay for the mate-
rial. We have a purchase order and a cost card for the ma-
terial. The time study department sends us down a complete
machining cost, not by operation, but a complete cost of
machining. We know what our overhead (1671) is in that
department, and that compiled together makes our cost.
Q. Now, do you have any check, or do you establish
your cost in the department merely from a time study
card, or do you get actual production figures at the end
of the month, or the end of the day from the department
and the actual amount of hours of labor that were spent in
the department? A. We get a production report at the
end of each week for the number of motors built for that
week. And, every motor has a cam shaft in, so we knew
we built so many cam shafts, or we built so many motors.
Q. You get a report, then, from the whole depart-
ment, which makes the motors, is that the idea? A. That
is right.
Q. And they give you a record of just how many mo-
tors were made? A. That is right.
Q. Do you get any individual records as to all of the
various parts that went into the motor; the cam shaft,
the crankshaft, the valves? <A. No, sir.
Q. Do you keep any separate record of that cost at
any time of all of these various parts? A. Only at the
start of the season when we come into production for a
new part, we work up a part to set our service prices with,
and in ease of a supplier offering to bill a certain part for
less than we make in our plant, we will make a cost to
see whether we can make it cheaper than we can buy it.
Other than that, we do not.
rr
wopacig tony ane
HRY emenepage CRETE
Harold W. Hogelan, Direct Examination 385
Q. Now, on the proposition of the service cost, or
service sales, (1672) you say you would get the price of
a cam shaft from your service sales department, as I un-
derstood it, at the present day, if you wanted to find the
cost of a cam shaft in 1927. Was that your testimony, did
I understand correctly? A. Will you repeat it?
(The last question was thereupon repeated by the
reporter. )
A. No, if we built the cam shaft in 1927, and it was
laying in our service stock, we would have a cost in our
department of a cam shaft.
Q. Now, would that be the cost of producing it, or
the cost at which the article is set, the sales price, the
price at which you sell it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. It would be the sales price, the price at which you
sell it? A. It would be the cost; what it cost us to make it.
Q. Isee. And, that is the cost which you established,
as I understood your testimony, then, at the very begin-
ning of the production of the model? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that price or cost is established by a time
study; is that the idea? A. Furnished to us—from a pro-
duction time sheet furnished to us by the time study de-
partment; as we transfer that stock from production over
to service at the start of the year, so that we have them
in stock for replacement.
Q. Now, that time study furnished to you, as I under-
stood your testimony, would give, however, the lump sum
cost of the complete cam shaft? (1673) A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, do you have at any time available to you
any data or written record that would give the cost of a
number of operations? Assuming, just for the sake of this
question, that it took, we will say, 65 or 70 separate and
distinct operations to produce this particular cam shaft,
Exhibit 33, do you have in your cost accounting system
any way of determining the cost of each one of those sepa-
rate operations? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever kept any records of that type? A.
No, sir.
Q. Would you as a—I understand you are in charge
of the cost accounting at the Hudson Company? <A. Yes,
sir.
886 Harold W. Hogelan, Direct Examination
Q. Would you recommend to the company that they
keep such a record? A. I would recommend that they do
not keep such a record.
Q. Why would you recommend that they do not keep
such a record? A. Because there is no use for it in the
cost of building an automobile.
Q. How long have you been engaged in this cost ac-
counting work, Mr. Hogelan? How long have you been
with the Hudson Company? A. Well, I have been with
the Hudson Motor Car Company 14 years.
Q. 14 years. And, doing cost accounting? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Have you ever had an occasion in that 14 years to
determine the exact cost of a single operation of a part
such as this which is made by the use of 60 different opera-
tions (indicating)? A. No, sir.
(1675) Q. Now, with respect to these time studies
that you get from the (1676) department, how long do you
preserve those actual physical time study cards? A. We
keep them until the part becomes obsolete.
Q. And, when does the part become obsolete? A.
When it is not used in the preceding model that is coming
out.
Q. That is, if you had a cam shaft such as this one—
we will assume for the sake of the question that this would
be an ‘‘A,’’ what would be designated as A-6250 cam shaft
for the Ford Model A; now, in your system, as soon as
you change the model, and change that particular part,
you would, then, throw away all your time studies, is that
the idea? A. Yes, sir.
Q. At the Ford Motor Company, Mr. Hogelan, they
use a Form of the type shown in Exhibit H (indicating),
and, one of these Forms are used for each separate part
that goes into the ear, that is produced by the Ford Com-
pany. This Form, as you note, gives the part number, the
name of the part,—and, showing the way the Form is filled
out, I show you Exhibit H-1, which is a similar form, but
of an earlier date than Exhibit H, and that gives the part
number. It would be T-410, and the name cam shaft, and
the date, and the department, whatever designation the
Harold W. Hogelan, Direct Examination 887
department has. Now, you notice it gives the dates of the
month, running 31 days and the shifts, and the hours, the
shift production, the total production, and the total hours,
and various other information; minute costs, number of
pieces of scrap, and all that sort of thing. Do you use a
record of that type at Hudson Company? (1677) A. No,
sir. That seems rather complicated.
Q. Now, after these cards are prepared and—the sys-
tem is at the Ford plant they send them to the accounting
department, and then the accounting department, from
time to time, makes out cards of the type shown in Ex-
hibit G, a cost summary card. I will show you just one
of those cards. I think if you will see the card you will
no doubt understand it a little better. We have here, this
is Exhibit F-3, a cost summary card for the T-410 cam
shaft. That was the cam shaft used on the model T. Now,
you will notice on this card for July, 1924, we had the
department 410, another department 819, both of which
departments had to do with the various operations, and
it gives the production for the month, the total production
for the department, and then it gives a labor cost and a
burden cost. Now, this labor and burden cost are prepared
according to the system at Ford’s from the—is that Form
2202, Mr. Hovis?
Mr. Hovis: The Ford Company uses 2202 for the
basis of the cost summary cards.
Q. You understand the system I just outlined? <A.
Yes. I see it on here, too.
Q. Do you keep a record of that type at the Hudson
Company? A. No, sir. All we keep a record of for that
part is for material cost, the labor cost, and the time we
were making it in the current production, and the over-
head of the department it was made in. That is for service
only. For production, we do not keep any cam shaft cost
whatsoever.
Q. Do you have at the Hudson Company, Mr. Hoge-
lan, any record similar to this operation sheet, Exhibit M?
(1678) A. Not in the cost department. All we know is
the total cost at the bottom for machining the cam shaft.
Q. Do you know whether they have records of that
888 Harold W. Hogelan, Direct Examination
type anywheres? A. They carry them in the time study
department while the part is current.
Q. Do you know how long those are preserved? A.
Until the part becomes obsolete, and then they throw it
away.
Q. Now, as a cost accountant, Mr. Hogelan, would you
state what would be your personal practice if you got a
cost of a single operation and, let us say to make it per-
tinent, an operation of roughing the contours of the cams
as is shown by the cam shaft, Exhibit 234, and let me show
you also another exhibit here, Exhibit 29. Exhibit 29
shows a shaft in condition for the operation of removing
the excess stock off the cams, and putting the shaft in the
condition such as shown in this Exhibit 234. Suppose you
had a production machine for doing that particular job, and
you had obtained the time from your time study depart-
ment for that particular operation, and there was no change
in the part or the machine, we will say, for a period of
four or five years; would you take the time study given to
you at the beginning of the period as sufficiently accurate
to establish the cost during the four or five-year period,
assuming there was no change made in the part, and no
change made in the machine? A. Would the parts still be
in production?
Q. Yes. The part maintaining the same operation on
the same machine, running right straight along, and con-
tinues production during a four or five-year period? A.
Well, I would say if the operations on the machining of the
(1679) cam shaft didn’t change; but, if any of the items
such as the handling of this part that was in the depart-
ment in the process which, due to reconstructing a con-
veyor and so forth, which might change the price, other-
wise, we wouldn’t.
Q. Assume the operation of that machine remains
standard. A. There is only one thing that would enter
this, and that would be the labor conditions where the rate
per hour would be changed.
Q. Of course, that should be taken into consideration,
of course. A. When we change our base rate upon which
our time studies are set, then we would change the price
of the piece; other than that, we wouldn’t. Because, our
a
oOrans Lamroerperennaare emmnponr me siinmetien mre SG
Harold W. Hogelan, Re-Direct Examination 889
time studies are based in hours. We are not interested in
dollars and cents, as far as the shop is concerned, for
machining this. It is hours.
Q. If you happened to have some U. A. W. difficulties,
that might change the situation materially, too? A. We
have a lot of that.
(1696) Re-Direcr Examination by Mr. Farley.
Q. Do you understand as an accountant, Mr. Hogelan,
what it would mean to make a group of machines in the
plant for doing one separate operation, let us say, on a
cam shaft, a cost center—you understand what I mean by
that? That is, to separate your cost so that, assuming we
have a battery, we will say, of ten or twelve or fourteen ma-
chines, let us say, performing this specific operation of turn-
ing the cams of the cam shafts, to use those as a cost center,
computing the area of space in the plants which they oc-
cupy and then allocating all of your overhead or burden
costs to each separate battery or group of machines all
throughout the plant on that sort of a basis, so as to sepa-
rate your burden and all your other costs to each particular
operation—you understand what I mean? A. Yes, sir.
We center our burden to the entire motor.
Mr. Spohn: What was the answer; I didn’t get
that?
The Master: ‘‘We center our burden to the entire
motor.’”’
(1697) Q. (By Mr. Farley): Do you think it would
be feasible, or would you recommend to your company that
they adopt this segregated system of costing? A. No, sir.
For this reason: That we are only interested in the cost
of building an automobile, and not any individual parts.
Q. And would the same answer apply, for example, to
job costs? That is, it is practically the same question, but,
just simply phrasing it in different language, that instead
of selecting a group of machines as a cost center, that you
allocate your costs, let us say, on a job on the cam shaft,
separating it, or segregating it and having costs to which
you allocate burden and everything else of that type to
890 Harold W. Hogelan, Re-Direct Examination
each particular part of a car? A. No. We have division
center such as a motor, transmission, clutch, paint shop,
trim shop, body building, and, we allocate all the parts
relative to those groups to that split-up.
For instance, all the parts in a motor, whether it is a
piston, crank shaft, or a cylinder block, carries the same
overhead, as long as it is built in the motor division. No
matter what it is, if it carries the share of burden in pro-
portion to the direct labor that is on that part.
Q. Do you think it would be profitable to your com-
pany to make a separation or segregation of the type I
have just mentioned? A. I donot. I do not.
Q. You would not, therefore, recommend to your com-
pany that they adopt any such system? A. I would not.
Q. Now, considering, for instance, the difference in
early (1698) production between the Ford Company and
the Hudson Company, do you think it would be profitable
for the Ford Company to adopt such a system?
Mr. Spohn: If your Honor please, that is a pretty
drastic conclusion to ask of the witness.
Mr. Farley: That is exactly an answer given by
Mr. Moise on one of my questions on cross examina-
tion, that if the Ford Company would be profited if they
adopt such a system.
Mr. Spohn: Well, didn’t counsel ask the question?
Mr. Farley: All right. I am entitled to have an
answer here as I was from Mr. Moise. The only dif-
ference being here that we have a disinterested witness.
Mr. Michael: I take exception to that.
Mr. Farley: Take all the exception you like. It is
the truth, and you know it.
The Master: I think you might re-frame your
question to ask the witness—
Mr. Farley (Interposing): Very well, if your
Honor please. After all, you have the burden of at-
tempting to separate the chaff from the wheat, and, I
would be very much appreciable, if, considering the
things that you have to decide upon, you will ask the
question to decide any problems you might have in your
own mind,
as =e so cate aaieat tt cae
Pierce Albert Weyl, Direct Examination 891
The Master: Well, would you have an opinion
whether or not it would be advisable for the Ford
Motor Company, with its larger production, to—
(To the reporter): Will you read back the last few
questions of Mr. Farley, and the answers by the wit-
ness, Mr. Reporter?
(1699) (The record was then read by the report-
er.)
The Master: Well, do you have an opinion as to
whether or not the Ford Company, with its larger
production, ought to adopt such a system, or whether
or not it would be advisable for it to do so?
A. My own opinion would be this: That it would be
a tremendous undertaking to try to keep it when I don’t
think it is necessary to arrive at a cost of an automobile.
Mr. Farley: Do you think it would be of any
value after you got it?
A. No, sir.
Pierce Apert Weyu was thereupon called as a wit-
ness on behalf of the Defendant, and having been first duly
sworn, testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.
Mr. Farley: Mr. Hogelan is excused, I assume?
The Master: That is right.
Q. (By Mr. Farley): Your full name, please? A.
Pierce Albert Weyl.
Q. Where do you live, Mr. Weyl? A. In Dearborn,
Michigan.
(1700) Q. And you are employed by the Ford Motor
Company? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you been employed by the Ford
Motor Company? A. Since 1927.
Q. In what department of the Ford Motor Company
are you employed? A. In the engineering department.
Q. Which particular engineering department? A.
Well, in design of the automobile and what we call a car
engineering department.
TD a ia Cad la dic
892 Pierce Albert Weyl, Direct Examination
Q. That is Mr. Shelldrick’s department? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. And, in addition to the car engineering depart-
ment, they have also at the Ford Motor Company another
engineering department under the supervision of Mr.
Pioch? <A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what does Pioch’s department have to do with
it, if you know? A. Well, Pioch is tool design, they design
tools and dies, to use in machine tools in the shop for pro-
duction.
Q. Whereas, your department, or Shelldrick’s depart-
ment, in which you are employed, has to do solely with the
design and engineering of the automobile and the parts
that go to make up the entire automobile? A. That is
right.
Q. Now, what system, if any, do you have in Mr.
Shelldrick’s department to make a record of, or to take
care of changes and design of a car, or parts of a car?
A. We have one, what we call our engineering release
system, and our model change on which we make hand-
written or typed copy (1701) from our parts list. And,
from that, an indelible is made, and, anywheres from 30
to 60 copies of that indelible are run off on a duplicator
machine, and distributed to the various departments that
are interested, purchasing and tool design, the department
in the shop that is going to make the part, and the out-
side vender, if it is partially machined, or if it is forged
before we receive it, the vender also gets a copy. The
same procedure is followed through on changes and revi-
sions that we make.
Q. Yes. A. Although it is carried on different form.
Q. Those cards to which you refer are commonly re-
ferred to around the plant as ‘‘Engineering Information’’?
A. That is right, ‘‘E. I.”’
Q. And, as I understand it, you have a separate card
for each and every part that goes into the car, with, of
course, the possible exception of what we might call stand-
ard bolts and nuts and screws, and things of that type,
you wouldn’t have to have a card for 3%ths bolts, would
you? A. Yes, sir, we have a card for everything.
Q. Is that so? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I am surprised to learn that. I didn’t know
that. A. Yes. On the smaller parts we have a card,
Pierce Albert Weyl, Direct Examination 893
like on the % bolts, they will specify for a certain unit.
On our parts list, we break that down to the application,
to the units that are fastened together.
Q. I see. If you have 65 or 175 bolts of the same
size, type and construction to be used in the part, you
wouldn’t have 65 (1702) cards for it? A. No.
Q. You would have one card that would say 65 parts?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, now, are you familiar with those particular
cards? A. Well, quite a bit, yes. I have handled that
work for about a year on all of these new models we have
had.
Q. I show you a group of cards (handing cards to the
wiiness), and ask you if you can state first, are they
regular records of the Ford Motor Company? A. This
record has been discontinued, I don’t know just in what
year. This used to be used entirely as a summary of all
the individual changes and releases, but we don’t sum-
marize it like this any more.
Q. Well, I would like to have you again just to keep
in mind my question. Is that a regular record of the Ford
Company? A. Yes, it is.
Q. You recognize that? A. Yes, I recognize that.
Q. As a matter of fact, these engineering cards were
given to you this morning? A. Yes, sir.
Q. From the Ford Company? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, not this group of cards, because I had them
here a day or two before, but just what parts do these cards
refer to? A. This is a cam shaft model T-410.
Q. And those cards cover the construction of the
T-410 cam shaft (1703) from the 26th day of November,
1907, on into and through to the—what date? A. Decem-
ber 7, 1926.
Mr. Farley: I wonder if your Honor would like
to take a look at those for a minute?
The Master: Yes.
(Mr. Farley then handed the cards to the Master.)
Q. (By Mr. Farley): Now, those particular cards
are—I don’t know whether you noticed it—but they are
entitled ‘‘Finish Drawing,’’ and I have here a group oi
photostats. A. Yes.
894 Pierce Albert Weyl, Direct Examination
Q. And the group of cards consists of 7 cards. Now,
I show you another group of cards (handing cards to wit-
ness), which are entitled ‘‘Forging Drawing, T-410.”’ A.
That is right.
Q. And this second group of cards, which consists of
card No. 1, card No. 2, card No. 3 and card No. 4 and card
No. 5, cover what period of time? A. January 10, 1908,
to October 21, 1926.
Q. Now, I take it that for parts of that particular
type you have, therefore, two sets of cards; one set of
cards covering the forging, and one covering the part in
its finished condition? A. That is true.
Q. And as changes are made from time to time in
either the forging or the finished shaft, all of such changes
are made a matter of record on those cards, is that correct?
A. That is true.
Q. Now, could you, by consulting the model T cards
make a quick survey of the finished drawing cards, of the
number of changes (1704) made in the period from 1907
until the end, in the construction of the part? A. (Refer-
ring to cards): It is approximately 56 different changes in
construction.
The Master: May I see those?
The Witness: Yes, your Honor. (Handing cards
to the Master.)
Q. (By Mr. Farley): Could you, by consulting the
card of the model T-410, determine whether or not any of
the changes that are noted on the card were made for the
purpose of facilitating production? A. (Referring to
cards): Mostly—I can pick them out by the men who re-
quested the change.
Q. How? A. Pick them out by the men who re-
quested the change, the authority of the change on here;
the changes not requested by men in the engineering de-
partment came from the shop.
Q. Do you find any such changes noted? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. How many? A. (Referring to cards): I think
there is 12 here.
Q. So, then, 12 out of 50 some changes that were made
on the model T cam shaft in that period of time were
changes requested by the production department. Now,
Pierce Albert Weyl, Direct Examination 895
_ is there anything—well, of course, that shows there was
nothing particularly unusual in that practice? A. No,
there was nothing unusual.
Q. Well, will you consult the card—I think as long
as we are going to put photostatic copies of these in evi-
dence, that I (1705) would like to have you refer to the
particular changes, by whom they were requested, so
that we may know just exactly how you decided that?
The Master: In other words, you want him to
state—
A. (Interrupting): Authority, the name of the man.
Q. Yes. How you reached the conclusion you just
gave in your last answer.
The Master: Of the 12 that were made by the men
in the shop.
A. Yes. Now, there is one by Martin. There is an-
other one by Martin; Banta, Degener, three more by Banta,
one by Perini, another one by Degener; there was one by
Wandersee; another one by Degener; here is one by Endict;
one by Rouse; one by Thrall.
Q. I notice one on this card, No. 3, on the back of it,
6/24/19, by P. E. Martin. You didn’t refer to that par-
ticular one. A. Well, the reason I didn’t refer to that was
because P. Martin comes in the engineering department
quite a bit, although he isn’t in the engineering department.
I mean I am just picking out the ones from authority that
didn’t originate in the department. P. E. Martin—
Q. (Interposing): P. E. Martin is in charge of the de-
partment, in charge of production? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, let’s see, that particular change is brought up
to date by specifying these shafts to be copper-plated? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. A thousandth and one-half thick, .00156, before
grinding? (1706) A. Yes.
Q. That would only have to do with production,
wouldn’t it? A. Yes, that is true, yes. Here is another
one (indicating), by Wandersee.
Q. That is on card No. 5? A. Yes. Here is another
one by Wandersee, on card No. 5. Here is two (indicating)
on card No. 6 by C. Martin.
896 Pierce Albert Weyl, Direct Examination
Q. Who was C. Martin? Do you know who C. Martin
is?) That is Charlie Martin, isn’t it? A. Yes, Charlie Mar-
tin. This was—let’s see—that was 1924.
Q. Chuck? A. I know where he was in 1927. He used
to go between the engineering in Highland Park.
(1707) Q. (By Mr. Farley): In other words, how
many, roughly how many (1708) are there in Mr. Shell-
drick’s department? A. That can sign these cards?
Q. No. But, how many are there in the department,
all told, at the present time? A. I would say about 150.
Q. About 1507 A. Yes.
The Master: And there are just about three that
could sign the cards?
A. Yes, with the authority to put the change through.
The Master: Are there similar conditions as to
the men in the shop that can put a change through?
A. The men in the shop can only request a change to
the engineering department, and the authority for the
change comes out of the engineering department.
Q. (By Mr. Farley): Well, the proportionate men in
the shop, there are a few of them that have sufficient au-
thority to authorize a change. How many men are there in
the shop, as far as you know, that have the authority to
put an engineering change through on production? A.
A. Well, nobody in the shop can put an engineering
change through. Anybody in the shop that is familiar with
the job can request a change, and if the engineer sees fit
to make that change to accommodate them, or to reduce
costs, or to increase production, why, then, we do that.
The Master: Well, suppose for example you have
an operator running one of these machines and he
thinks it would be a good idea to change the design of
the part to better suit the machine; could he go right
to the department, and would (1709) his name appear?
A. No, no, his name would not appear. The engineer
approving the change, his name would appear there.
The Master: Well, then, how do you get the name
of anybody not in the engineering department on these
cards?
Pierce Albert Weyl, Direct Examination 897
A. Well, these cards—
Q. (Interposing): Well, take Martin’s name, for ex-
ample. Is P. E. Martin in a sufficient authority in the com-
pany to order that an engineering change be put through?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Whether your department approves of it or not?
A. Oh, yes. —
The Master: Well, is that true of some of the men
in the machine design department, machining engineer-
ing?
A. No.
The Master: Pioch’s department?
A. No.
The Master: Well, how does Charlie Martin’s
name get on the cards, then?
A. Charlie Martin’s name gets on the card because he
probably brought out a blue-print from down in the shop
or some place else, and signed the blue-print, dated it, for
record, and we consider then that the change was requested
by Martin, Charlie Martin; see? We do that same thing
today. Every shop foreman that sends in a marked blue-
print for a change, and the change is approved, that record
or print will go in our file, and his name will be on that
print, although, usually today, the only authority that will
appear will be somebody in the engineering department
whose name will not appear unless it (1710) is on a com-
munication attached to our record.
I will say this, that as a general rule, a majority of
the changes originate in the engineering department, due to
some changes in the design, but a good many of them do
come from the shop; and just how they get into the system,
into the records, finally, there may be a record of who re-
quested it, or there may not be. The authority, oh, usually
comes out of the engineering department today.
The Master: So, there may be a change, and the
initiative of which will come from the shop, and, yet,
so far as the cards are concerned, the name of the party
identified with the change will be the name of some-
one in the engineering department, rather than the man
in the shop who initiated the change?
898 Pierce Albert Weyl, Direct Examination
A. That is true. You understand that this is not the
record of the change. We have another set of records—I
don’t know about these model T records, but, at the pres-
ent time we have another—our indelible record, the indi-
vidual sheet that covers this change will sometimes show
‘*Requested by so and so.”’
But, for instance, if our service department requested
a change, we will say ‘‘Requested by service department,’’
or ‘‘Requested by Briggs,’’ or ‘‘Requested by Murray.’
This is a summary.
The Master: This is a summary of the changes
made?
A. Yes, sir.
The Master: Or changes listed were made?
A. Yes, sir, this is just a summary. This is not the
complete breakdown.
Q. (By Mr. Farley): Will you take again another
survey of these (1711) cards and see whether or not any
change was made in so far as the cams of the cam shaft
are concerned? A. On both forging and finish?
Q. Yes, I wish you would, on both forging and finish.
The Master: Which cards are you taking up first?
A. I will take up the forging.
The Master: Yes.
A. Card No. 1, 2/12/09, relative positive between ex-
haust and inlet cam was formerly 109 degrees. This has
been changed to 111 degrees to conform with Mr. Degener’s
sample shaft.
9/1/09 added 1/16th finish to front end of first cam,
and put % clearance slot on machine drawing.
The Master: All right, go ahead.
A. 11/14/12, changed angle between inlet and exhaust
cams from 111 degrees to 115 degrees and 45 minutes. Do
you want to read the whole thing?
The Master: I don’t think we are interested in the
angle.
The Witness: What are you interested in? In the
machining of the cams?
Pierce Albert Weyl, Direct Examination 899
Q. (By Mr. Farley): Well, that particular part you
are referring to refers to the fact that often the shop does
not have sufficient stock to finish? A. Yes.
Q. That is all right. Well, the change in 1912, De-
cember 19, 1912, shows that a change was made in the
drawing because the forging companies were making cam
shafts in which to have their dies constructed in a certain
way. That was a change to facilitate production, appar-
ently, was it not? (1712) A. Yes, that is right.
Do you want all the changes on the cams?
Q. No, I don’t think so.
The Master: This discussion can be off the rec-
ord.
(Discussion off the record.)
A. In 1/18/1916, change diameter for face of cams
from 7/8 of an inch to 57/64 of an inch. This change to
take effect on all dies which are being made, and on all
old dies when they are re-sunk.
On 1/16/1919, change diameter of cams at face from
57/64 of an inch to 59/64ths of an inch.
The Master: What does that mean?
A. That is the low limit, and this is the high limit;
from a low 57/64ths to a high 59/64ths.
The Master: Why don’t they give limits in the
original figure here?
A. Well, they didn’t have any there. They just added
a limit there. Probably somebody made some under size,
and, then, we added a limit, so we never get under the
57/64ths.
And, 3/11/24, added 3/16ths to front end of exhaust
cam, No. 1, changing the length from 15/16ths of an inch,
to 1-1/8th inches, and the distance between cam and flange
from 1-55/64 to 1-43/64.
Q. That particular change, right there, Mr. Weyl, had
to do, as I understand the note, with the distance of the
spacing of the cam adjacent to the flange in the front end
of the shaft, is that right? A. That is right. That is what
it says.
Q. And that change tended to decrease the distance
between the (1713) flange and the end of the cam, isn’t
that right? A. That is true.
900 Pierce Albert Weyl, Direct Examination
The Master: And also lengthened the—
Mr. Farley (Interposing): And also lengthened
the width of the cam.
The Witness: And also lengthened the width of
the cam, that is right.
Mr. Farley: All right.
Q. (By Mr. Farley): And what was the date of that
particular change, did you mention that?
The Master: That was mentioned.
A. That was on 3/11/24.
Q. Isee. All right. A. That is all I can find with
relation to the cams on the forging.
Q. Yes. A. On the finish drawing—
The Master: Start right there—this can be off
the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. Farley: I think, Mr. Weyl, if you just run
through now, until, let us say, the period around about
—just take a look at 1914—any changes from 1914 on
for a year or two—well, suppose you jump to 1924.
The Master: In fact, to get the record straight,
why not start in at a period from 1907 to 1914?
Mr. Farley: All right.
The Witness: I have gone over all of them, I
think, down—
The Master: You can keep this discussion off the
record, (1714) Mr. Reporter.
(Discussion off the record.)
The Witness: There is one on June 11, 1912. It
says, ‘‘re-design, bring the shape of cams up to date
with the change made on T-533, also changing the
angle between the exhaust and inlet cams from 111
degrees to 113 degrees, 25 minutes; this change to take
place on 1913 cars. If, however, there are any cam
shafts of our present design left over, they are to be
used up before starting on the new forging drawings,
will not be affected by this change.’’
And, 9/21/12, change diameter for base of cams
from .8125 over .8130 to .812 over .813.
Pierce Albert Weyl, Direct Examination 901
Q. I notice as you are going over that particular one,
that on card No. 2, the change on March 7, 1916, which
states that the change was made in order to avoid trouble
that occurred when assembling the parts; that is correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Of course, that was a production difficulty that
that change was made to overcome? A. Yes, sir, that is
right.
Mr. Farley: I will tell you what, if I might make
the suggestion, if your Honor please, I haven’t asked
Mr. Wey] to study these cards particularly. He had no
idea what I was going to ask him. I have a witness
that is very eager to get away. I wonder if I could
have Mr. Weyl] study over these cards, and we might
save some time, and he could come back on the stand,
and you would know, then, and you wouldn’t have to
spend the time looking over the cards. Would that be
all right? Any objection to that, Mr. Michael?
(1714%4) Mr. Michael: No, not at all.
* » * * *
(1737) Pierce Wey. thereupon resumed the stand as
a witness on behalf of the Defendant herein, and having
been previously duly sworn, testified as follows:
Dmect Examination by Mr. Farley (Continued).
Q. During the time you were off the stand, Mr. Wey],
have you consulted those cards to pick out quickly the
places where the cards show a change in the shaft having
to do with the cams? A. I will just give you the date,
and if you are going to have photostatic copies, you can
look at it. On the forging drawing on T-410—
The Master: Haven’t you already gone through
that?
Mr. Farley: I think you went through the forg-
ing drawings before. I think now you might go to
the finish drawings. I think you discussed the forging
drawings fairly well.
A. There are five changes on the cam in the forging
drawing.
902 Pierce Albert Weyl, Direct Examination
The Master: You also covered part of the finish.
The Witness: There are 11 changes on the finish
drawing.
Q. (By Mr. Farley, continuing): That is relating to
the cams? A. That is relating to the cams; either the ends
or somewhere on the cams, the machining of the cams.
That is on the model T. Do you want the model A?
Q. Yes. Will you consult the model A drawings?
A. On model A—
(1738) Q. (Interposing): Just a minute on model A,
What does your information show the date the model A,
the first engineering information for cam shaft, for June
16? A. June 16, 1927—no. June 10, 1927.
Q. What does the June 10, 1927, date show? A. Re-
lease for production.
Q. That the part was released for production on that
date? <A. Yes, sir.
The Master: What card would show the dimen-
sions when it was released for production, and other
specifications?
A. The drawing of that same date would show what
that was at that time. The record drawing.
Q. (By Mr. Farley, continuing): Just on that point,
Mr. Weyl, I think if we refer to the blue-print that is in
evidence, the blue-print A-6250, which is Exhibit 2, at-
tached to the statement of account Exhibit ‘‘C,’’ now this
particular drawing contains in the box in the upper right-
hand corner the date of 6/3/27; is that right? A. That is
true.
Q. Now, how about your engineering information?
A. It says it was released for production on 6/10/27.
Q. Is there a similar notation on the drawing? The
first change— A. (Interrupting): The first engineering
date on the drawing is 6/24/27.
Q. And, do you have a notation on the card? A. The
ecard says on that date the contour of cam changed in ac-
cordance with change on finished shaft; flanged diameter
reduced from 2-15/16 to 2-7/16 diameter.
(1739) Q. On the card, engineering information card
A-6250-A-1 it shows on the date of June 24, 1927, release
for production, and a change made in the drawing? A.
That is right.
i
Pierce Albert Weyl, Direct Examination 903
Q. Now, what does the drawing show? Does that also
contain that date? A. It contains that date. That is
the first release on the finish drawing.
Q. And, I notice in the box in the upper right-hand
corner of the card it has the number 813. A. That has
also 813; that is the release, E. I., engineering information
number.
Q. And the engineering information card, No. 1, for
the A-6250 shaft contains—the first item is item 813, that
corresponds to the first change in the drawing? A. Yes.
Q. That, so far as the system works, so that the
Court may understand it, at a time a change is made in
the drawing, the exact information concerning the change
which was jotted is down on the engineering information
card, is that correct? A. That is correct.
Q. Now, suppose that your first change, reduce diam-
eter of cam gear flange from 2-13/16 to 2-5/16; that would
entail, would it not, making a change of the dimension,
that particular dimension, as it appeared on the drawing
as originally made? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Just how do you go about doing that as far as the
original drawing is concerned? You have a tracing of it,
and take the original tracing and erase the figure that was
there before, (1740) and put in the new figure for the di-
mension? A. That is right. We keep a record blue-print
of the way it was prior to the change on the tracing.
Q. And, in addition to that you have the other record?
A. Have this record also, to tell what change was made.
Q. I see. So, taking any one of these sets of cards,
and a blue-print such as Exhibit 2, you can take this
blue-print too, and beginning with the last date that was
given, you could trace back through all of these engineer-
ing information numbers, as contained in these cards, exact-
ly what had happened, every change that had been made
back to the date the drawing was first made? <A. Yes.
Mr. Farley: Do you understand that system, your
Honor?
The Master: Yes.
Q. (By Mr. Farley, continuing): Now, I call your at-
tention, Mr. Weyl, to the second item on card No. 1 of the
A-6250 shaft, which says, ‘‘Two intermediate bearings’’—
without bothering with the dimensions—well, ‘1.599 diam-
904 Pierce Albert Weyl, Direct Examination
eter by % inch long added.’’ Can you explain just what
that would mean? A. It would mean it added a couple of
intermediate bearings. There was one there and one over
there. You can see it faintly on the print here (indicating).
See that outline there. And this faint outline here, that
didn’t get quite rubbed out hard enough.
Q. And two bearings. A. Two additional cam shaft
bearings were added at that time.
(1741) Q. And those bearings would be between what
cams, as you number the cams? The cams are numbered
on the drawing here. I see there is the faint line indicat-
ing that addition between the No. 3 inlet, and the No. 4 in-
let, and a similar bearing was added between the No. 1 inlet
and the No. 2 inlet? A. That is right.
Q. But, those bearings are not, however, shown on
this blue-print, Exhibit 2, except the faint indication in-
dicating they had been erased? A. Then they must have
been removed at a later date.
Q. Now, if they had been removed at a later date,
would you find anything on the engineering information
cards? Will you look and see, please? A. (Examining
cards): They were removed here 9/28/28; removed under
E. I. No. 10419.
Q. That is the 8th change noted from the top on the
blue-print? A. That is right.
Q. Under engineering information No. 10419, and the
date of 9/28/28? A. It says, ‘‘Remove second and fourth
bearings,’’ so that is when those bearings were taken out.
Q. Now, I think I will—I don’t think it is necessary
to spend the time to go over all these other cards A-6250.
Will you just state, after considering those, what changes,
if there are any important changes in so far as the cams
are concerned? A. It says here, ‘‘Change heel diameter
of cam,’’ on 9/28/28, when they removed the second and
fourth bearings on that same change, they changed the
heel diameter of the cam from .954 to (1742) .953/.955 and
specified heel of cams to be concentric with bearings within
two-thousandths.
Q. Of course, the change there was really no change
in the actual dimension, but it gave the shop a one-thou-
sandths variation below, and a one-thouandths variation
above the .954? A. That is right.
Pierce Albert Weyl, Direct Examination 905
Q. But, this changed, possibly, the accuracy within
which the heel of the cam should be held relative to the
bearings? A. That is right.
Q. Now, I notice, Mr. Weyl, that the blue-print on the
model A job does not, as far as I have been able to deter-
mine by studying it, give any indication to the shop as to
the amount of material to be left on the cams after the
rough turning, and for assembly finish and finish grind-
ing.
Mr. Michael: May I have the question?
(Question read by reporter.)
A. No, there is no allowance made there.
Q. Do you know what your practice is in that respect
as far as the engineering department is concerned? Do
you make it a practice to specify that amount to be left in
the shop, or do you leave that to the judgment of the shop
foreman? A. We leave that to the judgment of the pro-
duction men.
Q. Now, were you in the engineering department dur-
ing the design of the model A? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know Mr. Pioch? <A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you state whether or not during that period
you saw Mr. (1743) Pioch around your department during
the time model A was being designed? A. Almost every
day.
Q. Can you state whether or not, to your knowledge,
your department works with Pioch’s department and
whether, if at any time changes are made by your depart-
ment in the design of any of the parts which go on the
car, like the cam shaft, at the request of Pioch’s depart-
ment or to facilitate production? A. Yes, we make changes
to facilitate production whether requested by Pioch or
somebody else.
Q. That is not at all unusual? A. No. It is common
practice.
Q. And, the engineering information shows that as
far as the model A-6250 shaft was concerned, that changes
actually were made in the bearings of those shafts? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. We had testimony from Mr. Pioch that it would be
feasible to make a change in the design of the bearings
906 Pierce Albert Weyl, Direct Examination
of the model A shaft by cutting off some length, say, mak-
ing the bearing a quarter of an inch shorter by increasing
its diameter so as to keep the same area, surface of the
area of the bearing. Would you state whether or not that
would, in your opinion, be feasible?
Mr. Michael: Well, now, your Honor, I don’t
think this witness is qualified.
The Master: I don’t think you have qualified this
witness as yet. You will have to show he has more ex-
perience in the designing of automobiles.
(1744) Mr. Farley: That will be very easy.
Q. (By Mr. Farley): Do you, yourself, design parts
for the automobile? A. Yes, I have. I am not doing that
work right now, but I have all through, ever since I went
with the company.
Q. Have you had some experience in engine design?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, let me put the question this way, whether or
not you qualify as an engineer? A. Well, lama graduate
engineer of the University of Michigan, 1920. I have
worked for Continental Motors and other manufacturers.
The Master: In the engineering department?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. (By Mr. Farley): Are you a graduate in engineer-
ing from the University of Michigan? A. Yes, sir.
The Master: Would you feel qualified to state as
to whether a change in the bearings in the cam shaft
would be feasible or not? Are you familiar with that
part of the car and its function sufficiently to make a
statement on that?
A. Yes, you could change the bearings.
Mr. Farley: First, are you qualified? Do you feel
you have sufficient knowledge? Will you answer that
question first?
A. Yes, I think I have sufficient knowledge to deter-
mine whether the bearings can be changed.
The Master: Now, you better ask the specific
question.
Pierce Albert Weyl, Direct Examination 907
Q. (By Mr. Farley, continuing): Now then, the spe-
cific question, (1745) with the knowledge that you have,
would you state, as an experienced engineer, and graduate
engineer, if a change such as we have described of taking
a quarter of an inch, we will say, off one end of the bearing,
and increasing its diameter at the same time to maintain
the same bearing area, whether that would be feasible? A.
It is possible. You would have to work out the mechanics
to get your loading to know what you could do. If you
increase the bearing pressure—you figure on projected area,
and you can make it longer, and a small diameter, and have
the same projected area, as if you make it shorter, and a
larger diameter. It is the length times the diameter that
gives you your bearing holding.
Q. My question was directed to that. Of course, as-
suming you had in the shaft, as it now exists, a desired
projected bearing area? A. Yes.
Q. And, if you shortened the bearing by one-quarter
of an inch, it would then be a matter of simple engineering
mathematics to determine the exact size or increase? A.
That is right.
Q. (Continuing): —in the diameter that should be
resorted to? A. That is right.
Q. To compensate for the shortening? A. That is
right.
Q. Now, would you state from your knowledge of the
Ford Company’s practice whether a change of that type
would be at all out of the usual procedure, assuming that
the change was made for production purposes, to facilitate
production? (1746) A. No. We make a change like that
if we thought there was enough involved, or a good reason
for it. We wouldn’t like to do it every day.
The Master: If you increase the diameter of the
center bearing, would you increase proportionately the
diameter of the end bearings?
A. Yes. We increase all bearings because that is very
likely line reamed or burnished.
The Master: Would you also increase the diam-
eter of the flange?
A. Not necessarily. That gear fastens on here. I
don’t know how the gear fastens on here. It wouldn’t be
908 Pierce Albert Weyl, Direct Examination
necessary to increase the size of this flange if this gear that
fastens on here is keyed on from this end.
The Master: Would there be any reason for alter-
ing the size of the cams because of change in the diam-
eter of the bearings?
A. No.
Q. (By Mr. Farley, continuing): The shafts you have
before you, I will show you this shaft, Exhibit 33, the shafts
you have before you are shafts not wholly completed? A.
I see.
Q. Now, with respect to Exhibit 33, what means are
provided on the flanged end for fastening the gear? A.
This nut.
Q. That gear post end of the shaft is threaded, is it
not? A. That is right.
Q. And having the threaded gear post end, that would
involve no necessity to change the flange? (1747) A. That
is right.
Q. One of the witnesses who testified concerning this
proposition of the bearings suggested another alternative
with respect to the—this is the rear bearing, is it not, the
small bearing at the end opposite the flange? A. That is
right.
Q. (Continuing): —suggested that parts might be
made separately as a collar to slide over the end of the
shaft. What would you say about that? A. That is not
a good production job. I wouldn’t say it was feasible.
You could change this either in location or something else
if you wanted to without any difficulty. That is on the back
end of the block; you could move it backward or forward.
Q. How would that go as to a matter of Ford stand-
ards? You are pretty familiar with standards out there,
aren’t you?
The Master: How would what go?
Mr. Farley: I mean the proposition of making the
bearing as a separate part.
A. I don’t know of any place where we do it.
Q. The fact is in that respect the Ford Company, I
think, is almost unique in insisting wherever possible parts
be made integral rather than separate? A. That is the
main principle of engineering we have; to reduce the num-
ber of parts.
Pierce Albert Weyl, Direct Examination 909
The Master: You stated that you could lengthen
the space between these bearings without any major
alteration.
A. That is right. In this particular bearing here,
there is (1748) nothing in the way, that I know of, on the
ear that would prevent you from moving that bearing back
or forward here on the back end of the block. Up here you
have your timing gear, which you have to take into con-
sideration. This rear bearing, there is nothing in the way
there that I know of.
The Master: Would you have to lengthen the rest
of the motor design, or alter it, if you moved that back?
A. You would just have to put a boss on the back end
of the block maybe 3/16 inch thick. It wouldn’t be a very
major change, I wouldn’t say.
The Master: I suppose you are speaking now of
the V-8 engine. Are you familiar with the A engine?
A. Yes, sir.
The Master: Whether the situation would be the
same?
A. It would be the same on the model A. It would be
the same on practically any engine. There is nothing in
the way, as a general rule where this cam shaft lays on a
“*L”’ engine, which this is here. So I don’t know what the
removable sleeve idea is for. The main thing on this cam
shaft diameter is this thing here. The diameter of the
shaft between the bearings is what determines its rigidity
more than the diameter at the bearing. It has a beam here
that is supported in these two places. You have four loads
on it; four valves.
Mr. Farley: I think that is all. I would like, of
course, to introduce in evidence the—I think we might
group these, if your Honor please; the model T-410
engineering information relating to the forging draw-
ings, and consisting of five cards, all of the said cards
having data typed on both (1749) the front and re-
versed faces.
The Master: Suppose you have an exhibit number
marked on the front of each of these four sheets.
910 Pierce Albert Weyl, Direct Examination
(Two groups of documents were thereupon marked
Defendant’s Exhibits 289 and 290, respectively, by the
reporter.)
Mr. Farley: And, Exhibit 290 for the model T
section drawing, engineering information, consisting of
7 cards.
Will you mark this, please?
(A group of documents were thereupon marked
Defendant’s Exhibit 291 by the reporter.)
Mr. Farley: As Exhibit 291, the engineering in-
formation cards for the forging drawings consisting of
two cards. Will you mark these, please?
(A group of documents were marked Defendant’s
Exhibit 292 by the reporter.)
Mr. Farley: As Exhibit 292, the engineering cards
for the finish drawings for the A-6250 cam shaft, con-
sisting of 2 cards.
The Master: I notice on this Exhibit 290, card 6,
a record of changes on the T-410 cam shaft under date
of March 11, 1924. There is a notation entered: ‘‘Add
3/16 inch to front end of exhaust cam No. 1, changing
the length from %” to 1-1/16” and distance between
cam and flange.”’
This gives rough turning specifications as well as
grinding and inspection grinding specifications. Why
do they have the rough turn specifications here, do you
know? I thought you stated that the records here were
solely on the (1750) finish size of the part.
A. Well, at this time on this drawing there must have
been the rough turn grind, and inspection grind must have
shown on the blue-print or on the tracing, and then this
change was made. That is the only way I can explain it.
The Master: But, ordinarily, you didn’t—
A. (Interposing): Ordinarily we don’t show that
rough turn grind and inspection grind dimension on a
drawing. We give on the forging drawing—there will be
a limit, high and low limit on the diameters, and then
there will be on the finish drawing a finish diameter with a
tolerance, and that is all. As this is in this card, it was on
the drawing, I am pretty sure.
TT a ag
Pierce Albert Weyl, Cross Examination 911
Q. (By Mr. Farley, continuing): I notice, referring to
the model T drawing, which is Exhibit 1 attached to our
Exhibit ‘‘C,’’ that, as for some of the dimensions, they do
give the grind and the finish grind.
The Master: Do they do that for the diameter
of the cam?
Mr. Farley: I will let the witness answer.
A. On the cam it is usually shown on another—the cam
outline is usually shown on a different drawing; cam con-
tour.
Q. (By Mr. Farley): Well, they give one dimension
here for the center bearing, and it gives that for the center
bearing. I notice in the view here at the left of the sheet
we do have rough diameter of cam? A. Yes.
Q. .860 to .870, and finish grind, .810 to .813. That
would mean about fifty-thousandths left after the rough
turning and finish grinding? (1751) A. That is right.
Q. Twenty-five thousandths on the side? A. That
is right.
Mr. Farley: I think that is all. You may cross-
examine.
Mr. Michael: Did you offer these cards, Mr. Far-
ley?
Mr. Farley: I think I did. I had them marked,
and, of course, I now offer them.
Mr. Michael: I would like a question or two on
them.
The Master: Go ahead.
Cross Examination by Mr. Michael.
Q. As I understood your testimony, Mr. Weyl, these
ecards that have been offered here as Exhibits 290, 289,
291 and 292 relate only to the rough forging drawing and
the finish drawing, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And they show nothing regarding tolerances, di-
mensions or what not, for any of the operations inter-
mediate the rough forging and the finish job? A. Oh,
yes. They will show the intermediate operations if there
has been a change between a forging and a completely fin-
ished job.
912 Pierce Albert Weyl, Cross Examination
Q. I mean a change, now, that does not change the
product; merely a change in tolerance in the job. A. That
change shows on these cards; the change in tolerance shows.
Q. I understood you to say the cards didn’t show
anything of that kind; you left that to the shop? (1752)
A. What I said there was the amount they leave for finish
grinding. On the model there it doesn’t show any tolerance
for finish grinding, or anything like that, so that won’t
show on this card; but, if on the forging drawing we find
that we haven’t got enough stock, which shows in some of
these cards here, we might increase the diameter of the
forging at a certain place to allow enough stock to be
finished off, and that change in dimension, increasing the
amount of stock to be finished off, will be shown in this
record.
But, if the shop wants to make three cuts to remove
that from the forging down to the final finish, that is up to
them. We don’t tell them to take off twenty thousandths
on the first cut and ten thousandths on the next, and then
five thousandths grind or three thousandths, or so.
Q. If they want to reduce the amount of stock left on
the cams on the turning operation from 60 thousandths
to 40 thousandths, that would be up to them? A. That is
pretty big, 60 to 40 thousandths; it might require a change
in the forging itself.
Q. Supposing you had a different machine that came
into the department for turning the shafts. That wouldn’t
show on these cards, would it? A. No, the machine
wouldn’t show.
Q. And, if after they got the machine operating they
cut down the tolerance, that wouldn’t show on the cards?
A. What tolerance do you mean?
Q. The tolerance for turning the cams on any machine?
A. No. Except in this case we show on the model T where
we do allow a rough grind and inspection grind. I don’t
find that (1753) came on any of the later records.
Q. And, you said that was exceptional? A. That is
right.
Q. And wasn’t commonly done? A. That is right.
Mr. Michael: I don’t know what the purpose of
these cards is, Mr. Farley. I would like you to state
what you expect to prove by them.
Mr. Farley: We expect to show by the cards, in
view of the great deal of examination, that in so far
meaner sisi
Pierce Albert Weyl, Re-Direct Examination 913
as any major changes were concerned, there were no
major changes with respect to the contour of the cams
during all the model T, or the model A production, and
also we show the fact that these cards fully corrobo-
rate the testimony of Mr. Pioch, and also the testimony
: just now given by Mr. Wey], that it is not only nothing
unusual, but rather common practice of the Ford Com-
pany to make changes in the design of a part to facili-
tate production from time to time; also, that in this
very instance of the model A shaft, changes were made
even after they got in production in bearings for bear-
ing size, and that sort of thing.
The Master: The question which came up in re-
sponse to which, I think—or in answer to which I think
you were going to prove these cards was in connection
with the question of whether the straightening opera-
tion might not have been added because of reducing
the tolerance in the rough-turning operation because
of more rigid specifications as time went on. These
cards would not conclusively answer that—
Mr. Farley (Interposing): I think they would, if
your (1754) Honor please, on the model T job, because,
as you note, the drawings on the model T, this one
drawing does give tolerances and amount between
rough grind and finish grind on the shaft, as well as on
the cams. Now, if any change had been made during
the time when the shift-over occurred from the shaper
to the Melling cam lathes, it should be on the ecard.
The Master: In the first place, the drawing that
you have does not show the tolerances for rough turn-
ing the cams themselves, but only the margin in be-
tween the cams.
Mr. Farley: No. If your Honor please, I will have
the witness testify.
ot SOON LPG AAP DREN EA
Re-Drrect Examination by Mr. Farley.
Q. On the view at the right of the sheet, on the left-
hand side of the sheet, I call your attention to rough
diameter of cam; .860 to .870; finish grind .810 to .813.
Will you state just what part of the cam shaft that dimen-
sion is given for? A. That base circle diameter of the
cam.
Mr. Farley: Of the cam?
A. Of the cam.
914 Pierce Albert Weyl, Re-Direct Examination
Mr. Farley: That is for each and all the cams?
A. The bottom part of the cam.
The Master: Do you know whether this rough
diameter given is the rough forging diameter or the
rough turning diameter?
A. That is the turning diameter, if it is within 10
thousandths.
Mr. Farley: Yes, that gives the diameter of the
cam, and if you allow that material, that amount of
material for the (1755) turning operation, and between
the turning and the finish grind on the base circle of the
cam, can you state whether or not that same tolerance
would prevail as to the rest of the cam contour?
A. Very likely it would be about the same.
The. Master: Of course, if this were—this has
been stated to be an unusual case where the rough
turning diameter is given in the drawing, and also
indicated in certain of the changes, and if the fore-
man were given to understand that by and large the
only thing that they had to be concerned with, as far
as measuring up to the requirements of the engineer-
ing department was concerned, was the finish size, the
foreman might well make a change in the tolerance,
which they required for the rough turning, without
notifying the engineering department.
A. That is possible, but it isn’t very likely. If they
want to change any dimension on these prints, they should
notify us to put through a change in whatever dimension
they want to change. Otherwise, our drawings would be
of no value. We would think they are making it one way,
and they are making it some other way.
The Master: Does the foreman have these draw-
ings in front of him?
A. Yes. Anybody in the plant has a blue-print.
The Master: If the foreman made a change in the
tolerance and rough turning of bearing, say either the
center bearing, or one of the end bearings, he would
not notify your department, would he?
Pierce Albert Weyl, Re-Direct Examination 915
A. He would examine the appearance on the drawing,
because we have (1756) to change that dimension to con-
form to whatever he wants.
The Master: Does that appear on the drawing?
A. Rough turn and grind. If it doesn’t appear on the
drawing, he wouldn’t have to do that. If it does appear
on the drawing, he should notify us. All he has to do is
send us a marked print, and mark on there he wants that
limit changed; and then, as a general rule, somebody tries
to find out why he wants it changed, and we change it.
Q. (By Mr. Farley, continuing): You went to the
Ford Company in 1927 at the beginning of the model A
production? A. Yes, sir, and before model A started.
Q. But, you were not there during all of the model T
production? A. Just the latter part.
Q. Your testimony that it would be unusual is based
on your experience in model A and V-8 production, isn’t
it? A. That is right.
The Master: Is it also based on an inspection of
eards similar to this or to these cards produced for
various model T parts?
A. Our system of handling a change on a drawing has
never been changed. If anyone wants a change on the
drawing, they are supposed to send a marked print to the
engineering department, or a communication, asking the
engineering department to make the change. The draw-
ing is then changed, and a record and F, I. made covering
that change, and usually it will say why the change was
made, or revision.
The Master: But, as to whether tolerances, other
than the tolerances for the finished part, are ordi-
narily given (1757) in the drawing, and whether such
tolerances would—or, ordinarily included in your ree-
ords showing the tolerances which are made, or show-
ing changes in tolerance which are made on the fin-
ished drawing, as to whether that was at all common
during model T production, you would have some in-
formation on that from an inspection of these cards
and various parts in the past, would you not?
A. Yes. As I say, whatever is on the drawing, no
matter what dimension is on that drawing, if anybody
wants to change it a request has to go through the en-
916 Pierce Albert Weyl, Re-Direct Examination
gineering department to get.it changed. If on this draw-
ing it shows rough, and you mivht have a semi-finished
rough, or rough, or a sémi-fi.ish, and finish and a grind,
and if somebody wants to change those tolerances, or limits
on there, the only way they can get it changed is to come
to the engineering department because we have the trac-
ing that this blue-print was made from, and if they want
to make a change, they have to change the drawing. That
is their authorization. They can’t make a change without
telling anybody; otherwise, they would be changing some-
thing we don’t know about, which sometimes happens on
a die, which when we are going into production, and they
make a change on account of tearing metal, we might not
get the change until three months afterwards; but, that
is very rare.
Ordinarily, on machine surveys like this, they have to
give us a marked print or a written communication ask-
ing us to change that drawing. If they don’t give us it
on the exact date, they will give it to us later and it will
appear on (1758) our records.
The Master: Suppose a foreman decides that he
wants a straightening operation previous to rough-
turning the cams, which would enable him, on the
rough-turning operation, to bring the tolerance lim-
its from, say, .862 to .868.
A. Yes.
The Master: Instead of .860 to .870, which are
the dimensions given in this drawing. If the depart-
ment produced a finished cam shaft which had the
limits between .810 and .813, nobody would partic-
ularly care whether the tolerances in the rough turn-
ing were changed or not, would they?
A. Well, you say nobody would care, but still the law
is they should notify us that they want that changed. We
have to hold that, because otherwise they would make all
kinds of changes and we wouldn’t know anything about
them.
The Master: They would be more likely to notify
you of such a change than a finish change?
A. Yes. They could go ahead and vary just a little
bit, and we wouldn’t find it out right away, but if they
change something else on here that the inspector would
PPS Eee eR ee Pe a aioe antl EP ae MaRS MES ne is an
Pierce Albert Weyl, Re-Direct Examination 917
catch, you would find that right away. Nobody is sup-
posed to change any dimension on any drawing unless
it goes through tue engineering department for any limits.
Q. (By Mr. Farley, continuing): As far as a change
of that type is concerned, I don’t know whether you are
familiar with the operation in that particular department
—do you know whether you would, or have in that depart-
ment—let me make it, do you know whether they did have
in that department, or do have in that department, any in-
spection of (1759) the shaft between the rough turn and
the various grinding operations? A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know? A. I don’t know.
Q. Did you ever see them working in that department?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever seen the snap gauges they use, par-
ticularly which they use after rough grind, or the rough
finish, rather? A. Well, I have seen them make them, but
I never paid any particular attention to it.
Q. At the present time, have you ever seen these snap
gauges they use, for example, after the first grind? A. No.
I never saw the actual gauge, I don’t believe. I know this,
if you leave too much metal on your rough grind, the fellow
that has to do the final grinding is going to kick. If you
take metal off so that they wouldn’t have so much to grind
off, we don’t care.
Q. Suppose you take so much off and it doesn’t clean
up? A. Then, he will holler.
Q. As a matter of fact, in the department— A. You
will find that has been done in these records here where we
have added metal to the forging so that they can clean up.
Q. As a matter of fact, you use throughout the whole
plant what we call upper and lower limit snap gauges?
A. That is right; high and low.
Q. High and low, and they use those in t’ « department
for gauging the shaft after the rough-turnir’ operation?
A. I couldn’t say that; I don’t know.
(1760) Q. Suppose, if you assume they did use that,
wouldn’t it be necessary for the foreman, :f he made a
change, to have the— A. (Interrupting): He would have
to change his gauges, too.
Q. Have the change made in tiie vauges? A. That is
right.
918 Pierce Albert Weyl, Re-Cross Examination
Q. So that it come through? A. That would come
through tool design; we wouldn’t have anything to do with
that.
Mr. Farley: That is all.
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Michael.
Q. Mr. Weyl, if the Department 410 put in a bunch of
new machines for turning the surfaces off these cams, and
that automatically resulted in less tolerance or cutting
closer to size, would that be reflected in these cards? A.
The only way that would be reflected was if there had been
some dimensional changes made.
Q. You have a dimension change here. Now, you put
in a bank of new equipment, and change that dimension, is
that reflected in these cards? A. If the dimension is
changed, it should show in the cards.
Q. What is the date of this change we have been talk-
ing about here on card No. 6 of Exhibit 290? <A. 3/11/24.
Q. March 11, 1924, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. What is the indication regarding the rough turn?
A. Reduce the dimension from 1.958/1.962 inches to
1.771/1.775 (1761) inches.
Mr. Farley: Is there any change there in the toler-
ance; it is still four-thousandths tolerance?
A. The tolerance still remains four-thousandths.
Mr. Farley: But, the overall dimension is reduced
approximately 2 hundredths of an inch?
A. That is right.
Mr. Farley: Just what part of the cam was that
change made on?
A. The distance between the cam and a flange.
Q. (By Mr. Michael, continuing): It doesn’t agree
with the drawing? A. It doesn’t agree with the drawing,
no; there must have been another change after that some-
time.
Q. Another change after the change noted on card
No. 6? A. That is right. This one ‘‘A’’ (indicating).
Q. And, what does that have reference to? A. The
distance between the flange and the cam.
Q. Well, is there any designation on this drawing,
this Exhibit 1 attached to defendant’s statement of account,
= aepioty ERLE MS ©
L ose sitet Aeabit
Pierce Albert Weyl, Re-Cross Examination 919
is there any designation in here as to the rough size of the
cam?
Mr. Farley: What do you mean the rough forging
size?
Mr. Michael: No.
A. Just on this basis here, there is rough diameter
of cam .860 to .870.
Q. (By Mr. Michael, continuing): That is the rough
turning size? A. It must be.
Q. Why do you say ‘‘it must be’’? (1762) A. Rough
diameter of cam .860/.870; finish grind, .810 to .813.
The Master: The reason you state that is because
you think a forging can not be made, or, at least, those
aren’t practical—
A. (Interrupting): Limits on a forging.
Q. (Continuing): And this card No. 6 doesn’t indi-
cate any change in those matters? A. No, sir.
Q. And, one of the items it does indicate a change?
A. This distance here.
Q. It differs from the notation on the drawing? A.
Yes. Of course, there might have been a change after this,
where that was changed again. You can’t tell unless you go
through the whole set of cards to find out that.
The Master: I will admit these exhibits in evi-
dence. I think there is some evidence of the point,
even if there were no reference at all to the rough-
turning tolerances, because if the finish tolerances re-
main the same throughout the period, it certainly
throws some light upon whether the rough-turning
tolerances were materially changed.
Mr. Michael: It may throw some light on it, but
the tolerances we are dealing with here, concerning
with intermediate operations that may well enhance
production; for instance, your finish grinder can turn
out much better and quicker work if your tolerances
are kept closer during the turning of the cam.
The Master: I think that is clear from the evi-
dence.
Mr. Michael: That is all I have.
Mr. Farley: That is all. Thank you, Mr. Weyl.
(Witness excused.)
920 Pierce Albert Weyl, Re-Direct Examination
(1845) Pierce Wevw was thereupon recalled as a wit-
ness on behalf of the Defendant herein, and having been
previously duly sworn, testified further as follows:
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.
Q. You testified yesterday afternoon, Mr. Weyl, with
reference to the model A shaft, and you called attention to
Exhibit 2, the blue-print of the model A shaft, forming a
part of Defendant’s Exhibit A, to the places where the in-
termediate (1846) bearings referred to in the engineering
information, Exhibit 292, had been on the shaft and had
been removed. Now, also, in view of your testimony con-
cerning the shortening of the bearings of about a quarter
of an inch, you have now produced a blue-print in which
you have drawn, in crayon, the intermediate bearings as
shown, or as referred to in the engineering information
card, and you have indicated on this drawing the shorten-
ing of the bearings, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Farley: I would like to offer that blue-print
in evidence as Defendant’s Exhibit 297 as illustrative
of the witness’ testimony yesterday afternoon.
(The document above-referred to was thereupon
marked Defendant’s Exhibit 297 by the reporter.)
Mr. Michael: Mr. Weyl, did you say yesterday
that the model A shaft had actually been changed in
this way at some time in production?
A. Yes, sir. These two bearings had been removed,
and if it had been desirable to cut any length off of these
other bearings, we could have put these two bearings back
in and then removed an equal amount from the bearings
that remained, rather than change diameters, this would
really be a more feasible way to do it.
Mr. Michael: Then, this does not show anything
you actually did?
A. No. It just shows a method that could have been
used to perform the same thing as I was questioned of
yesterday, how to shorten the bearings; the method of
shortening the (1847) bearings.
Mr. Michael: Then, it is your testimony now that
had you at some time or other decided to shorten the
end bearings and the center bearing, you would have
aie Rod cate
Pierce Albert Weyl, Re-Direct Examination 921
added these two other bearings that you show here
intermediate the center bearings and the end bearing?
A. I think that would have been the more feasible way
to do it; yes.
The Master: You would have had to do some
collar cutting around two bearings, wouldn’t you?
A. Yes. That, of course, was in the block before we
removed that bearing. I mean that was all in the block
prior to the removal of these two bearings.
The Master: When were those two bearings re-
moved?
Mr. Farley: What does the information card show
as to the period of time and length of time in actual
production the Ford Company used those intermediate
bearings?
A. Two intermediate bearings were added 7/6/27, re-
moved 2nd and 4th bearings 9/28/28.
Mr. Farley: You are referring to Exhibit 292 now?
A. Yes, sir.
The Master: Were there any changes made in the
rest of the motor as of that date?
A. There must have been. When these bearings were
removed very likely the collar for the bushing support and
everything was taken off at the same time; that would
show in the block record.
The Master: Do you know why those were re-
moved?
(1848) A. No, sir, I do not. That probably proved
to be unnecessary.
The Master: Would it make less parts to manu-
facture to remove the two?
A. It depends on whether we ran the bearing in cast-
iron or not. I don’t know. If we ran it in cast-iron it
wouldn’t make any difference, if we used bushings we
would have two bushings.
Mr. Michael: Would you run a bearing like that
in cast-iron?
A. Some.
922 Pierce Albert Weyl, Re-Direct Examination
Mr. Michael: You mean a cast boss on the inside
of the motor block?
A. No, right in the block.
Q. You just mount the shaft on these two bearings
right in the cast-iron of the motor? A. Some manufac-
turers do. I don’t know whether model A was made that
way or not.
Mr. Michael: If you did that, would the cards in-
dicate?
A. No.
Mr. Michael: Do the cards indicate the addition 3
of parts when this change was made? a
A. I could trace the record and find out.
Mr. Michael: Do you know whether they ran these
two extra bearings right in the cast-iron?
A. No, sir, I don’t know.
Mr. Michael: Would you think they did?
A. I would think not.
Mr. Michael: And, if they didn’t, what would
have been (1849) required by the addition of those
two bearings?
A. Two additional bushings.
Mr. Michael: And, the bushings would have been,
there would have been the extra operation of mount-
ing the bushings in the cast-iron openings in the
motor block?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Michael: When they took the two bearings
off, they would have saved—strike that out—were these
added bearings just connected integrally with the
shaft?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Michael: And then they, of course, had to be
machined, and so on, and polished?
A. That would all be done when you machined the
other bearings.
al ina hai hata 9 _ i li ad RO eI i 7 "e F Ae i ee ee ele
Pierce Albert Weyl, Re-Direct Examination 923
Mr. Michael: But, you would have had those
added operations of machining and polishing those
added bearings?
A. Just the tool maintenance on that, I would say.
Mr. Farley: Just merely added extra tools?
The Witness: That is all.
Mr. Michael: You would have to have a fixture
in which were added two tools and two grinding wheels
: to take care of that?
y A. That is true.
4 Mr. Michael: When you added these two bearings,
a did you shorten up the center bearings and the end
& bearing?
A. The record doesn’t say so.
Mr. Michael: Do you know?
A. This is the record.
Mr. Michael: From the record—
A. (Interrupting): There were no changes made on
the other (1850) bearings when those two were added ac-
cording to the record here.
Mr. Michael: Then, you made no change in the
center bearing or end bearing when you added these
two bearings?
A. No, sir.
Mr. Michael: That is all.
Mr. Farley: As far as the use of any bushing, in
case bushings were used they would have been em-
ployed in the shop in the period from July 6, 1927, to
September 28, 1928?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Farley: That is all.
Mr. Michael: I object to the offer of the drawing
as not showing anything that was done by the Ford
Company or was apparently available to them.
The Master: Well, I will admit the exhibit in evi-
dence as part of the defendant’s proofs in connection
with the possible modification of the shaper or of the
bearings to enable the shaper to be used.
ALOIS NEGA TEINS ONG EET SLY SLOT ELI BE LEMP EOL ME ALOE NATL RES
924 Pierce Albert Weyl, Re-Cross Examination
Q. (By Mr. Farley, continuing): There are four
photostatic copies for the engineering information for the
finish size for the period beginning June 16, 1918, and
extending to November 10, 1928. There are two photo-
stats for the forging engineering information ranging from
the period of the third of July, 1918, to the 19th of January,
1926; is that correct? A. That is right.
Q. Now, the finish drawings, I note run to the latter
part of (1851) 1928, and the last engineering information
is added A. R. to symbol number indicating use for repairs
on 1917-1928, Fordson. How is it, Mr. Weyl, that the forg-
ing engineering information seems to stop on the 19th of
January, 1926, do you know? A. I can’t explain that.
Evidently when the part went for service we added A. R.
to the finish drawing. The forging drawing was not—
didn’t have the suffix added to the number. It is an error
on the part of somebody in the engineering department.
Q. You weren’t able—there is no other card? A. No
other card that I could find.
Mr. Farley: All right. I offer these in evidence as
Defendant’s Exhibit 298.
(A group of cards were thereupon marked De-
fendant’s Exhibit 298 by the reporter.)
Mr. Spohn: All under the one exhibit?
Mr. Farley: All under the one exhibit; 6 cards.
The Master: They are admitted. There is no ob-
jection other than the one you made to the other cards?
Mr. Spohn: No further objection than that, but
we may want to ask the witness a question or two.
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Michael.
Q. Mr. Weyl, would you say from those last cards that
Mr. Farley offered, Exhibit 298, that the tractor produc-
tion started in 1918, or would there be cards prior to that?
(1852) A. There is no card prior to that. But, I am quite
sure we made some tractors prior to that date. How many,
I don’t know. We made some in 1917, as I recall.
Q. According to your recollection, is that when they
started the tractor production, 1917? A. 1917 is when they
es wd; SN ail RR pater
James McEvoy, Direct Examination 925
started to build them. Whether they were in production or
just experimental models, I just couldn’t say.
Mr. Michael: That is all.
(Witness excused.)
(1715) James McEvoy was thereupon called as a wit-
ness on behalf of the Defendant herein, and having been
first duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.
Q. Where do you live, Mr. McEvoy? A. 1771 Burns
Avenue, Detroit.
Q. And, what is your occupation? A. I am a director
in the Patent Section of General Motors Corporation.
Q. Did you receive a subpoena to appear here? A. I
did. Here it is (producing document), half-past twelve
today.
Q. And, have you any interest in this proceeding here?
A. None whatever.
Q. How long have you been in charge of the Patent
Section of General Motors? A. Since 1922, July 1st.
Q. In connection with your duties in the Patent Sec-
tion of General Motors did you have any, or gain any, par-
ticular knowledge of a certain litigation brought against
the General Motors by the Gordon Form Lathe Company?
A. Yes, I did.
* * * * *
(1717) Q. Now, there was introduced here in evidence,
Mr. McEvoy, as Defendant’s Exhibit 71, an agreement be-
tween—‘‘Made this 30th day of October, 1930, by and
between the Gordon Form Lathe Company, a corporation
of Ohio, and General Motors Corporation, a corporation of
Delaware.’’
Did you have anything to do with the making of that
agreement (handing volume of prior transcript to the wit-
ness)? A. Oh, yes, I remember that agreement very well.
Q. I assume prior to the making of that agreement you
had many conferences with representatives of the plaintiffs?
A. No, not many conferences; no.
ROSES LOE LIL ENS ILL TOOL TE ORLEANS TG LO
926 James McEvoy, Direct Examination
Q. You had some, however? A. I, perhaps, had two
or three.
(1718) Q. What was, if you recall, Mr. McEvoy, what
was the first demand made by -the plaintiffs on General
Motors in connection with that litigation? A. The first in-
terview I had with Mr. Richey, and I think Mr. Gordon, and
I think two gentlemen from Milwaukee, two attorneys, as I
recall, they said they thought the Gordon Company was
entitled to $1,250,000 from the industry outside of Ford.
Q. I notice this particular agreement sets forth a con-
sideration of $195,000. A. That is correct.
Q. And, was that the sum that General Motors paid to
the plaintiffs here? A. That was the sum paid by all of
the persons in interest.
Q. That sum covered—do I understand that sum cov-
ered the entire automotive industry with the exception of
the Ford Motor Company? A. That is correct; yes, sir.
Q. And, I notice this particular agreement says that,
in paragraph 1, after reciting the consideration, that the
Gordon Form Lathe Company hereby releases and agrees
to release General Motors Corporation, a corporation of
Delaware, its subsidiaries and nominees, with the specific
and sole exception of the Ford Motor Company. Did you
have anything to do with the insertion of that exclusion of
the Ford Motor Company? A. No.
Q. Who was responsible for the placing of that in this
particular agreement, if you know? A. The Gordon Com-
pany. I don’t know which individual connected with (1719)
it would be responsible. But, at all times they said that the
Ford Company was not to be included in the settlement,
and we really were taking the matter up for the National
Automobile Chamber of Commerce, of which Mr. Ford was
not a member. So, there really was no reason why he
should have been in this at that time.
Q. Do you know whether or not any knowledge or in-
formation was given to the Ford Company of the fact that
a settlement was to be made? A. Not by me.
Q. Nor by anyone else, as far as you know? A. No,
sir.
Q. Do you know whether or not any invitation was
given to the Ford Motor Company to participate in that
settlement? A. No, sir, we were not interested in the
Ford Company at all.
” z fee
ID BO VALE CELE ELL CLINE ADL LILLE I YE SOG FEO
James McEvoy, Direct Examination 927
Q. Now, in connection with the fact, and noting par-
ticularly that the settlement was finally effected by General
Motors Corporation for a very much smaller sum than one
million and a half or one million and one-quarter dollars,
whatever you say, did you, at any time, in any interviews
you had with anyone representing the plaintiffs refer to
any of the defense material that Mr. Laughlin had un-
covered? A. Yes, I think I did.
Q. Did the matter of the payment of so much per cam,
or so much per cam shaft enter into the settlement which
you made? A. No, only indirectly.
Q. In so far as your negotiations with the plaintiffs
was concerned, that matter was never considered? A.
Amount per cam?
(1720) Q@. Yes. A. No.
The Master: When you say ‘‘indirectly,’’ what do
you mean by that?
A. Why, when we settled we acted for all of the con-
cerns in interest. There were 14 of them; 7 automobile
companies and 7 other companies who were using this
patent, such as the Continental Engine Company, and so on.
And, we undertook to make this settlement and pay the
money, and then collect from each of the persons in interest
their proportionate share based on the number of cams they
made.
Q. (By Mr. Farley, continuing): Number of cams, or
number of— A. (Interrupting): Number of cams.
Q. That, in reality, was an allocation based on produc-
tion of the companies? A. Yes, sir.
The Master: Did you, in advance of the settle-
ment, submit to the plaintiff any figures, or the plain-
tiff’s counsel, any figures as to the number of cams that
had been turned on the infringing machines?
A. No, sir, I never did.
Q. (By Mr. Farley, continuing): I note that this par-
ticular agreement refers to, in paragraph 8, ‘‘General
Motors Corporation on its part agrees to indemnify and
hold harmless the Gordon Form Lathe Company against
any and all claims and/or demands arising out of or by vir-
tue of contracts, copies attached hereto and made a part
hereof, made by it with certain other parties, namely,’’ the
Ba CN al a i
Sees 7
928 James McEvoy, Direct Examination
J. I. Case Company. There are two agreements noted with
the J. I. Case Company; two agreements with the (1721) |
White Motor Company; with the Nash Company, and one
with the Chrysler Corporation. A. That is correct.
Q. Now, referring to the reference to the White Com-
pany there, do you know anything about the inclusion, or
the reason for the inclusion of all of these companies here,
including the White Company in that paragraph? A.
Well, the Gordon Company had made agreements with
these concerns prior to the settlement that we effected, and
they simply put this clause in. It didn’t really make any
difference. I don’t know exactly why they put it in, as a
matter of fact. It was all concluded.
Q. They had some sort of a contractual agreement
with those particular companies, as appears from the very
face of this paragraph? A. Yes. They had settled with
them.
Q. And they had made certain contracts with those
companies? A. That is right. I couldn’t tell you right
now, Mr. Farley, what those contracts were.
Q. I appreciate that. A. I mean the form of them.
Q. Do you know whether you have, Mr. McEvoy, in
your files copies of those contracts referred to, which it
says: ‘‘Copies are attached hereto and made a part here-
of’’? A. Well, I ought to have them, or the attorney for
the N. A. C. C.
Mr. Farley: In connection with that point, your
Honor please, you recall the demand I made on the
plaintiffs to produce the White agreements, and I
would like to have the demand to produce extend to the
agreements with the Case (1722) Company, because I
found on further study of the record that plaintiffs also
put in an agreement, or a release, with the Case Com-
pany. I think that is—
Mr. Michael: That is correct, and we would be
glad to furnish all these contracts. They were given
to the defendant in the trial below, and they returned
them. They didn’t want to use them, and there has
been no demand on us since, until this session here in
Detroit.
Mr. Farley: There would have been a long time
ago if I had looked at those contracts below instead of
Mr. Cooper.
mst _—
James McEvoy, Direct Examination 929
Mr. Michael: Well, they were always available to
you. They were offered.
The Master: Do you have those contracts with
you here in Detroit?
Mr. Michael: Yes, we have them here in the hotel
room.
Q. (By Mr. Farley, continuing): Now, do you know
whether or not, Mr. McEvoy, the General Motors Corpora-
tion, as I understand it by this contract, they practically
took title to the Gordon patent? A. I just noticed this
clause (indicating), took an exclusive license as I remem-
ber, with the right in the Gordon Company only to prose-
cute a claim against the Ford Motor Company. That is
the only interest in the patent that they reserved, I think.
Q. That is right. The contract provided that all title
to the patent, except the reservation of the right to sue the
Ford Company, went to the General Motors Corporation,
including the right to the General Motors to sub-license to
the companies? A. That is correct.
Q. Do you know whether under that contract General
Motors granted (1723) any licenses to other companies? A.
I think we did. I think we granted licenses to all the com-
panies that paid, that contributed.
Q. And included in those companies were the licenses
to the White Company, do you know? A. I don’t think so,
because that had already been granted. I don’t really
recall, but I don’t see why we should have. I would have
to look that up, Mr. Farley.
Q. Do you know whether or not General Motors Cor-
poration made any payment to the White Company? Have
you got any records or data which show that? A. I think
we did, yes.
Q. You made some sort of a refund to the White Com-
pany— A. (Interposing): Made a refund to a number
of them. I have the statement here—
Q. This matter—go ahead. A. I haven’t anything to
say
Q. What is this (indicating documents)? A. Accord-
ing to this the Case Company paid Gordon $4,000. This
is just my memorandum. I haven’t checked this off to see
if it is correct; and, also paid $1,056 for past infringement,
$5,056; and, under this settlement we returned to the Case
Company $5,000.64.
a
930 James McEvoy, Direct Examination
Q. Mr. McEvoy, did you attend to the details yourself
of the adjustment of contributions? A. No, I did not. |
Q. But, you knew generally? A. Yes, Mr. Arvedson,
the patent attorney of the N. A. C. C. did that; George
Arvedson.
(1724) Q. We have in evidence here a departmental
communication with the White Motor Company that refers
to a release and a sub-license received, apparently, by them
December 31, 1931, and it contains a memorandum to the
effect that a check for $3705.92 was received December 31,
1931, from General Motors Corporation representing the
difference between payment of $6455.92 which they paid to
the Gordon Form Lathe Company. A. Is that the White
Company?
Q. Yes. A. Well, all of the financial transactions are
handled by the General Motors Corporation. But, we acted
upon the advice of Mr. Arvedson in the settlement.
Q. Would that be in accordance with your recollection
that, as a matter of fact, General Motors Corporation did
send a check to the White Company for a sum in the neigh-
borhood of $3700? A. That doesn’t show in my memoran-
dum. But, this memorandum perhaps wasn’t exactly accu-
rate. The one I have here shows the White Company en-
titled to $525.04. This may not be accurate. This was
probably made when we were first figuring on it.
Q. Well, could you state whether or not General
Motors did send a check to the White Company? A. Well,
I think so. I am quite sure they did. But, I hesitate to
testify to something that I didn’t handle myself.
Q. As to the exact amount, you have no particular
knowledge as to the amount? A. Yes. I could get that
for you.
The Master: How was the settlement figure of
$195,000 (1725) arrived at?
A. Mr. Laughlin, on his investigation, got in touch
with a Mr. O. W. Redlin, who according to the record of
the Patent Office was a joint inventor with Mr. Gordon of
this patent. This patent was issued to Gordon and Redlin.
Mr. Redlin, apparently, had little if any interest in the
suit, but he became very much interested. He was the
Works Manager Superintendent for the A. O. Smith Com-
pany of Milwaukee, and as I recall, had befriended Mr.
Ae pF ae Rie ARE
James McEvoy, Direct Examination 931
Gordon in a great many ways, and he was rather agitated
about this suit. I don’t think he liked it very much.
So, he undertook to see what he could do to settle it,
and he came over to see me with Mr. Laughlin. He sug-
gested $200,000, an arbitrary figure. I told him I wouldn’t
pay $200,000.
Then, he went back and called me up one day and said
he could settle for $195,000, and I agreed to that, and then
he sent me an agreement in which he purported to represent
the entire Gordon interest which, undoubtedly, he did.
That was agreed to about July 30, 1930, and I told him
this isn’t a settlement just for General Motors; it was a
settlement for these 14 companies interested in the matter,
and I would have to take it up with them to see if they were,
to see if they would join in, and we wrote out exactly as we
could the number of cams each one of them made, and the
settlement was based on that. And, some of these com-
panies like White and Case under that theory paid too
much. That was why they received a refund.
The Master: Did you have any information prior
to July, (1726) when you had this agreement with Red-
lin, from the other companies as to the number of cams
they had turned on the infringing machines?
A. Idon’t think so. I don’t really remember. I don’t
think so. Mr. Arvedson might have gotten some of the in-
formation from some of the automobile companies, but that
I couldn’t tell you, sir. I simply felt that it might be well
to pay a little less than $200,000 to settle the thing and not
have further litigation.
Q. (By Mr. Farley, continuing): Was that decision
to settle for $195,000, did you, in connection with that, Mr.
McEvoy, take into account the decision of the Sixth Cir-
cuit Court of Appeals in a case decided shortly before this
settlement was made by the General Motors Corporation
in the Gear Grinding versus Reo case wherein the Sixth
Cireuit Court of Appeals held that due to the fact that
the Chamber of Commerce had taken over the defense of
an earlier case filed against Studebaker, that that decision
was res adjudicata as to all the members of the Chamber
of Commerce? A. Well, I had that decision in mind, but
I have never really recognized it. That was more or less of
an obiter dictum of Judge Denison, but I did have that in
mind; yes.
932 James McEvoy, Cross Examination
Q. With due deference that we always have to the
Court of Appeals’ decisions, you realized that there was a
decision, but without wishing to attack the Court, you like
to reserve your judgment as to the correctness of their law
in that particular matter? A. Yes. I think they were mis-
taken. We all feel that way at times.
(1727) Q. That being said, of course, without in any
way prejudicing you? A. Oh, yes. I say that in all due
respect.
Q. Do you know whether or not the Automobile
Chamber of Commerce, as it then was, had taken over the
defense of the litigation against the Walcott Company?
A. Yes, they had.
Q. That is the case of Gordon versus Walcott? A.
Yes.
Q. The defense of that case was taken over by the
Chamber of Commerce? A. Yes, sir.
27 II et Ae
(1729) Cross Examination by Mr. Michael.
Q. Mr. McEvoy, my name is Michael, and I am from
Milwaukee. You remember me attending one of those
meetings, do you not? A. I think I remember you, the
first one, I think.
Q. In the summer of 1929? A. Was it 1929?
Q. That was when the meeting was, I think. A. I
thought it was after the suit had been brought; 1930.
Q. Well, frankly, I don’t have the record of it as to the
date of the meeting. A. It would not make any difference.
I remember you.
Q. Iam sure it was before the depression came along,
the crash of 1929, and we had that first meeting. Do you
remember having a meeting with representatives of the
various automobile companies in 1929? July, 1929? A. I
don’t think I did.
Q. Would your file show a record of such a meeting?
A. It might.
Q. Would you look to see? A. In 1929?
Q. Yes. In July, 1929. A. This stuff I have here
doesn’t go back of May, 1930. Mr. Arvedson may have had
such a meeting. -I don’t believe I did. I might have.
we ee ee
James McEvoy, Cross Examination 933
Q. You don’t remember any such meeting? A. No,
I don’t.
Q. It was held in the General Motors Building. A. I
wouldn’t dispute that, sir; I just don’t recall it.
(1730) Q. You don’t remember being at any such
meeting? A. No.
Q. You never attended a meeting with representatives
of various automobile companies concerning this patent?
A. I wouldn’t say that either; I just don’t recall it.
Q. Did you ever remember attending a meeting of rep-
resentatives at which there was present a representative of
the Ford Company, Mr. Halbert? A. No. What was his
name?
Q. Halbert. A. We were not interested in this thing
in 1929. We left the matter entirely in the hands of the
N. A. C. C. I hadn’t even started to do any work on it.
Q. Well, did you attend a meeting in Detroit called by
the N. A.C. C.? A. I may have done so. I don’t remem-
ber it, and I don’t believe I did.
Q. And, you don’t remember attending a meeting in
behalf of General Motors at which there was present a
representative of the Ford Company? A. No, sir.
Q. And you don’t remember, yourself or any one in
your department inviting the Ford Company to attend any
meetings of that kind? A. That we would invite the Ford
Company?
Q. Yes. A. No, I am sure we didn’t.
Q. Well, did you yourself call any meetings? A. No,
sir.
Q. Then, of course, you wouldn’t have invited the
Ford Company? (1731) A. I am sure of that.
Q. You don’t know whether the N. A. C. C. invited
them or not? A. I don’t remember, but I don’t believe
that they did.
Q. And, it was the N. A. C. C. that called these meet-
ings? A. If there was such a meeting, but I don’t remem-
ber it. About what date was that in 1929, do you think?
Q. Well, there was one meeting at which, according
to the evidence in this ease, Ford’s own records, Mr. Hal-
bert of the Ford Company attended, that was July 9, 1929?
A. July 9, 19297
Q. And, he was instructed when he went there that he
shouldn’t commit the Ford Company in any way; he was
934 James McEvoy, Cross Examination
just going asa listener? A. Well, if there was such a meet-
ing it must have been held at the request of Mr. Arvedson.
Q. But, you don’t remember Mr. Halbert being there?
A. No, I don’t.
Q. Do you know Mr. Halbert? A. No, sir, and I don’t
believe I was at any such meeting.
Q. Do you remember telling me and the other gentle-
men who attended the meeting with you in your office the
first time that you were representing the entire industry
except Ford, and that Ford refused to come in on it? A,
I might have told you that I represented the industry out-
side of Ford, but I never asked Ford to come in.
Q. And, you don’t remember saying that Ford had
been invited and refused to come in? A. No.
Q. And that Ford would never settle anything like this
anyway?! (1732) A. Well, I might have told you that last,
but I have no recollection of telling you he wouldn’t come
in. I certainly had no contact with them.
Mr. Farley: Having in mind particularly any-
thing iike this.
Q. (By Mr. Michael, continuing): Mr. McEvoy, the
agreement that the Gordon Company signed with your com-
pany, the settlement of the company, specified the amount
of $195,000, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. Now, in addition to that there were a number of
other agreements specified in the agreement with General
Motors under which the Gordon Company was paid many
additional thousands of dollars, isn’t that right? A. Yes,
that is right. That was Case and White, and Chrysler,
wasn’t it? And Nash?
Q. And Nash. A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that, in addition to the $195,000, the industry
paid those further sums, isn’t that true? A. That is cor-
rect. That was about $50,000 or $60,000 in all, wasn’t it?
Q. I think Chrysler alone was about $50,000. A. Yes,
somewhere around there.
Mr. Michael: We are going to produce these con-
tracts, your Honor, and it will all be clear from them.
* * * * *
_
James McEvoy, Re-Direct Examination 935
(1734) Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.
Q. It is right to the point of your Honor’s question.
Do you have any knowledge, Mr. McEvoy, as to whether
or not the settlement figure of $195,000 would have amount-
ed to anything like three-quarters of a cent a cam based
on the production of the entire industry? A. I couldn’t
tell you that, sir, now. I am not sure that that is accurate,
because it was changed from time to time as we were get-
ting more information.
The Master: This sheet you were pointing to lists
the various companies, and in other columns lists num-
bers of cams, numbers of cheeks, and the total?
A. That is right, but I wouldn’t want to state that is
absolutely accurate.
The Master: Who submitted this list to you?
A. Arvedson.
The Master: Is there any way of telling what date
this was submitted?
A. No, except by the other papers. It is October 28th.
The Master: Are these papers filed as you re-
ceived them?
A. Yes. If it is important, I think Mr. Arvedson can
give you those figures exactly. I probably can get them
from the accounting department.
Mr. Farley: May I see that, Mr. McEvoy, please?
(Mr. Farley examining document.)
The Witness (Continuing): It seems to me there
was something said at one time about three-quarters
of a cent a cam. I don’t know whether that was the
suggestion of the companies (1735) or not. I must
have that in the back of my head somewhere. I know
in our settlement we didn’t consider the number of
cams. I didn’t know how many cams there were when
I made the agreement with Redlin.
Q. (By Mr. Farley, continuing): That sheet to which
you were just referring, and which the Master consulted,
shows in round figures a total of over 160 million cams and
crank cheeks made by the various companies who were in-
cluded in the settlement, isn’t that right? A. Yes.
936 Albert Aptekar, Re-Direct Examination
The Master: Does that agreement purport to be
the number in cams and crank cheeks that were
turned on the infringing machines?
A. That is right. That might have been revised
later. There were several revisions. I remember I re-
ported to the corporation we would have to pay back
$30,000 less than we had to. It was very difficult to get
these things accurate. There were so many units involved.
(1763) Mr. Farley: I think I will call Mr. Ap-
tekar, if your Honor please, for a few questions.
Apert ApTeKAR was thereupon recalled as a wit-
ness on behalf of the Defendant herein, and having been
previously duly sworn, testified further as follows:
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.
Q. Mr. Aptekar, Mr. Woehrle, I understand, request-
ed you to make some check with reference to the type of
tools that were used on the Walcott machine, and the type
of tools that were made on the shapers? A. That is right.
Mr. Woehrle asked me to look into that, and I checked
some of the records, and I found some of the blue-prints
on those two different tools that were used; one was for
the Walcott lathe, and the other was for the shaper.
These are the blue-prints I have; they have a number ‘‘Z”’
number, if you care to record that (producing documents).
I don’t know whether you had this or not in your record.
Mr. Farley: No, we haven’t. I think we will—-
A. (Continuing): ‘‘A special blade for shaping cams
on cam shaft is 9-Z-32’’ detail 1.
Mr. Farley: I will ask that this drawing, 9-Z-32,
the cam shaft tool blade, be marked in evidence as
Defendant’s Exhibit 293.
(The document above-referred to was thereupon
marked Defendant’s Exhibit No. 293 by the reporter.)
Mr. Farley: And, the drawing 9-Z-215, as De-
fendant’s Exhibit 294.
p
yA ee ee ee er a
_—_
Albert Aptekar, Re-Direct Examination 937
(1764) (The document above-referred to was
thereupon marked Defendant’s Exhibit 294 by the
reporter.)
The Witness: Mr. Farley, I wish you would men-
tion those details on there.
Mr. Farley: Very well.
Q. (By Mr. Farley): Now, Exhibit 293 is a drawing
for the tool for the cam shaft shaper. This has a date
8/3/21, and the other drawing is dated 5/1/24. These
drawings show that as far as the shaper is concerned, the
tool is made of hammered high-speed steel, is that right?
A. That is right.
Q. And, the same with respect to the drawing for the
Walcott machine? A. The same material.
Q. Hammered high-speed steel. All right, now, if you
will just proceed. A. The next thing, I had one of each
of those tools made up in one of our departments there to
show how we maintain those tools—Mr. Woehrle has asked
me to get some information as to the original cost of those
tools. I was not able to get those. I went through our
records and could not find any record at all of those orig-
inal tools.
Q. Well, you have produced a tool which is made in
accordance with the drawing— A. (Interrupting): As
per blue-print.
Q. As per blue-print for the shaper. And, you have
also produced one for the Walcott machine, which is also
made in accordance with the drawings? A. That is right.
(1765) Q. Now, could you tell the Court anything at
all about the method of grinding or upkeep on those tools?
A. I can. I have not only my own recollection there, I
have talked to two men in the shop—in fact, three men
there—and they also verified my statement as to how they
ground those tools. We had a fixture which held 12 of
those tools in there.
Q. You are referring to the shaper tools? A. That
is right; Exhibit 293, the blue-print. They were held in
a fixture clamped across the fixture, and we went across
there with a surface grinder, grinding it with sufficient
strength so as to clean off the burnt edge of the tool. Now,
this fellow I talked to used to be a foreman on the job
there, and his name is William New. He was the foreman
~~
938 Albert Aptekar, Re-Direct Examination
of the grinding room in Highland Park. He remembered
it took from 15 to 20 minutes to grind a set of tools, con-
sisting of 12 tools in the set-up; grinding them.
Q. That is the shaper tools? A. That is the shaper
tools. I talked to another man by the name of Jack Frost.
He was foreman on the opposite shift of this other man,
and he told me the actual time of grinding those tools used
to take between 12 and 15 minutes to grind 12 tools. That
is actual grinding time.
Q. To grind a set of 12 tools for the shapers, is that
the idea? A. That is right.
Q. Will you point out to the Court now the differ-
ence in the method of grinding that would be required
between the tool for the Walcott machine and the tool for
the shaper? As I understand (1766) it, in re-grinding the
shaper toc!, the only grinding operation there was was
stake grinding across one face of the tool? A. That is
right.
Mr. Farley: Is that clear to your Honor?
The Master: This shaper tool, did that cut on
the side?
A. Yes. It set in the shaper like this on an angle,
about 70 degrees, and it cut like this (indicating).
Now, on these Walcott tools it required the hand oper-
ation all the way through. We had to grind this angle in
here, this angle in here, and also put the clearance in it
to clear the bearing on the cams, and also grind the clear-
ance on the top of the tools, which was about four or five
operations, and took those fellows 30 minutes to grind 12
pieces, which was almost double the cost of grinding those
tools as they were on the shaper tools.
There is another point I would like to bring out,
when these tools got dull, and we had 5% of an inch to
grind back before we salvage a tool, we used to get 12 to
15 grinds on one of those tools.
The Master: You are speaking of the shaper tool?
A. Yes. On these other tools there very often they
would break off and we had to grind all the way back, and
sometimes we didn’t get any more than about four grinds
on those tools, 9-Z-215; that is the Walcott tool.
Mr. Farley: I think that is all. I would like to
offer in evidence the two blue-prints of the tools, Ex-
Ble PPO, EPI BEEP SG ES YO Se i
—
Albert Aptekar, Re-Cross Examination 939
hibits 293 and 294, and also as physical exhibits, the
tools 293-A, let us say, which is the shaper tool; and,
294-A, the Walcott tool. (1767) I don’t think there will
be any difficulty about identifying them.
Te as ee eee
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Spohn. ©
Q. Mr. Aptekar, as I understand your testimony, this
grinding time you have for the shaper tools, that is just
what someone else told you? A. My recollection is about
the same. I just verified my own recollection.
Q. Did you ever grind any yourself? A. No, I did
not, but I used to grind those tools, because it was essen-
tial to have enough tools to keep the job running; and, I
used to go over to the grinding room to watch them grind
those tools.
Q. The shaper tool, as you remember, did they wear
pretty uniformly, or wear irregularly, some of them more
than others? A. Well, they wore pretty uniform, as I
recall it.
Q. Wouldn’t the time for grinding them vary very
much? A. What they used to do, they would set them
up in a fixture. For instance, if the point was burned off
a little more, we would set them in a little higher in the
fixture. If one is worn down a little, we would set it up
a little higher so it would not require any more time to
grind that in the surface grinder.
Q. But, they all had to be set up into this fixture be-
fore you could do that? A. That is right. We used to
use a 12-inch rule, 12-inch scale.
Q. And, they were set up in there? (1768) A. That
is right.
Q. And, if one was set down lower, of course, they
would be grinding a long time— A. (Interrupting): That
is why we used the rule, to determine the height of the
tools there.
Q. But, if one had been ground a little more than the
other, of course, you couldn’t set that in the same depth
as though that hadn’t been ground so much, could you?
A. We wouldn’t set them too low, because we would have
a rule across the top of all these tools, and set them up to
that point, where they would strike the tool, and they
would be all set within a few thousandths of an inch of the
same point.
940 Albert Aptekar, Re-Cross Examination
The Master: If you had one tool on which you
needed to grind off more surface, how would you take
care of that?
A. We would boost it up a little; move it up higher to
take care of that.
The Master: So that you would grind that tool
for some time before you would get to the other tool?
A. Not necessarily. In a surface grinder—I suppose
you know how they work?
The Master: No, I don’t.
A. When you start on a surface grinder you can
take off probably an eighth of an inch of stock. It comes
across the bottom here, and moves up and down until that
is all cut right across the top; so, regardless of how much
stock is on there, when you start off at one end you could
come right across. You couldn’t take off a quarter of an
inch of stock, but 10 or 15 thousandths wouldn’t make
any difference.
Q. But, you had to set these individually, did you not?
(1769) A. We usually move them up there individually;
yes.
Q. Before even you start the grinding? A. That is
right.
Re-Cross Examination (Continued) by Mr. Michael.
Q. I don’t know that this is going to be very impor-
tant, but I would like to get it straight for my own
satisfaction. A. Yes, sir.
Q. Here is a tool, as I understand, brought in here as a
tool out of the Melling machine. It doesn’t look like this
drawing, Exhibit 294. This is Exhibit 294-A. To begin
with, this actual tool, Exhibit 294-A—that would present
quite a different grinding problem ‘o the one you had
here in the drawing, wouldn’t it? A. Mr. Michael, you
realize we had to use two of those tools in a set-up, and
six of these tools in here to produce our cams.
Q. Is this another exhibit? A. It is the same thing.
I just ground one of each to show you the difference.
Q. Is this numbered?
The Master: It was called 294-B.
Albert Aptekar, Re-Cross Examination 941
Mr. Michael: We will call the second tool the
witness produced 294-B.
The Master: 294-A has a narrow point on the end
of it.
Mr. Michael: Yes; a reduced narrow point.
Mr. Farley: There are the ones taken out of the
machine. Does that help (indicating)?
(1770) Mr. Michael: Do we need these in evi-
dence?
Mr. Farley: I don’t think so, except this is a full-
sized tool.
Mr. Michael: Hadn’t you better withdraw these
two, then—294-A and 294-B?
, The Master: Suppose you do. It will avoid clut-
¥ tering up the record.
The Witness: They are identically the same tools
outside of being a little shorter.
Mr. Farley: I think that is all right.
Mr. Michael: Will you withdraw them on the
record?
Mr. Farley: Yes. I will withdraw those so that
the record may be clear, and state that the Exhibit
294 is a drawing of the tool which was introduced
in evidence as 243.
The Master: Wait a minute. Is it? It is a draw-
ing of another tool.
Mr. Michael: It isn’t even that.
Mr. Farley: I think it is.
Mr. Michael: I wouldn’t try to say this drawing
was of either of those tools. ‘Why don’t you just offer
those as tools—
The Master: Let the witness explain.
Mr. Michael: What about this other tool, are you
going to put this in?
Mr. Farley: It is still in.
Mr. Michael: What is the number of it?
Mr. Farley: Exhibit 244.
Q. (By Mr. Michael, continuing): Now, Mr. Aptekar,
we have here Exhibits 243 and 244. Are those like the
tools you (1771) actually used in the Walcott machine?
A. That is right. Those are the actual tools.
Q. And, you used six of Exhibit 244 and 2 of Exhibit
243, is that right? A. That is right.
ae ia
a
942 Albert Aptekar, Re-Direct Examination
Q. Now, neither of these tools seem to correspond to
the drawing, Exhibit 2947 A. As I understand it, we
buy those tools outside, and they are made according to
this drawing, and we grind those to suit our job as you
see on our Exhibits 243 and 244. Mr. Farley, I will ask
you to bring my other tool back, because I don’t believe
this is the tool.
Q. The only difference is that it hasn’t teeth on it, is
that right? A. This would be in the exhibit, I believe.
The Master: Maybe you better put that other
in.
Mr. Farley: Exhibit 294-A still stays in the pic-
ture.
The Master: It was 294-B before.
Mr. Michael: Will you straighten it out, Mr.
Farley? You can start over again and name that
294-A. You have withdrawn 294-A and 294-B.
Mr. Farley: I don’t see any particular point to it,
anyway, that we should be cluttering up the ree-
ord.
The Witness: If I was buying these two tools, I
would say I would have to pay more money for this
than this (indicating); Exhibit 294, the blue-print, I
would say more money for this tool, if I was buying it,
than I would Exhibit 244.
(1772) Mr. Farley: Let me have a little examina-
tion on this, if you don’t mind.
Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.
Q. As far as the tool shown in 294 is concerned, that
drawing shows the tools as you did actually buy them!
A. That is right.
Q. A piece of practically hammered high-speed steel,
3% of an inch square; and, on one side the tool would
have— A. (Interrupting): 7 notches.
Q. 7 notches, back from the point; is that the idea?
A. That is right.
Q. And the tool as purchased, if the manufacturer fol-
lowed the drawing, will have a 30-degree clearance angle
on the front edge? A. That is right.
Q. As far as the top edge of the tool is concerned, the
drawing doesn’t show anything at all about rake, does it?
pe iratban
Albert Aptekar, Re-Cross Examination 943
A. No. We would have to grind that ourselves to suit
the job, and we found we had to grind it on four different
angles in order to produce the proper tool for cutting the
cam shaft.
Q. So far as the size of the stock is concerned, the
square stock, the tools which you produced show they are
made of that size stock? A. That is right.
Q. If we take Exhibit 243, it also shows the same
thing? A. Identical same thing.
Q. As far as Exhibit 243 is concerned, that tool, it
shows the tool (1773) is substantially pretty close to exact-
ly the same length as shown in the blue-print, isn’t that
correct? A. It is.
Q. lt is a little bit shorter, probably 1/16 of an inch
shorter of the blue-print size of 2% of an inch? A. That
is right. That was evidently ground off in grinding the
radiuses on the angles on that tool.
Q. As far as the clearance angle on the front of the
tool is concerned, that shows the 30 degrees? A. Just
about 30 degrees.
Q. And the size of the tool shows 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 of the
notches, and a half of the notch in front has been ground
off? A. That is right.
Q. Now, the tool, Exhibit 243, has been ground off
on the two sides adjacent to the front edge for the pur-
pose of going into the space to start the cut on the bear-
ings—or, is it at the finish of the cut? A. At the finish
of the cut. You will not hit the bearing, the center bear-
ing, and front bearing.
Mr. Farley: Does that straighten it up?
Mr. Michael: That is all right.
Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Michael.
Q. Now, in the use of the Walcott tools, when one of
them wore, or became worn, you just take out that one
tool, wouldn’t you, or adjust the one tool? A. If it burnt
out one tool we replace that one tool in particular.
(1774) Q. And, in the shaper, when one tool, or more
tools beeame worn, you would take the whole bunch out?
A. No, we take out those tools worn out. If it is one, we
take one out; and, if it is three, we take three out.
pioeanctanaarasereenen —"
944 Albert Aptekar, Re-Cross Examination
Q. When you ground them, you ground eight at a
time? A. Well, we used to have about 500 tools ahead;
when we ground them, we ground 12 at a time.
Q. And those 500 tools were just in a pile in a box?
A. No, we had racks to keep them in, aluminum racks with
holes in to fit the tools, and we kept them in an upright
position with the point upwards so that it would not
damage the point of the tool.
Q. Were they kept in the order with reference to the
way they were taken out of the machines? A. No. It
didn’t make any difference what size or length of the tools
it was, because our machines were adjustable to the tool.
Q. Some of those might be worn at one thirty-second,
or some more, or some less, isn’t that true? A. Yes.
They would be 15 to 35 thousandths.
Q. But, the variation in that dimension over 500 tools
would be much greater than that, wouldn’t they? A. I
don’t hardly think so.
Q. Do you know? A. Unless we strike a hard spot
in the cam shaft and we break off the point. They would
break off a little more, probably 15 thousandths.
Q. In this fixture you mounted 8 tools? A. No, 12.
Q. 12 in the fixture? (1775) A. That is right.
Q. And the distance you would have to grind would
be in each case the maximum wear in any one of those
12 tools. I mean, you would have to go up with your
grinding as much as the maximum wear on any one of the
12 tools? A. Well, our surface grinders are so equipped
you can take off 1/32 as well as you can 5 thousandths.
As I explained before, the circular notch of the wheel,
starting at one end, you can take off as much stock as you
want,
Mr. Farley: May I interrupt? I think you and
Mr. Aptekar were talking at cross-purposes there a
moment ago when he said the variation of 15 to 35
thousandths. I think what he had in mind was the
amount that would be required to be ground at each
re-grinding.
The Witness: That is right.
Mr. Farley: But, what you were talking about, I
am quite sure, in that 500 tools there might be con-
siderable variation, you might have 1 tool in which %
_—
Me
Albert Aptekar, Re-Direct Examination 945
of an inch has been ground off already, and another
was less; is that your idea?
Mr. Michael: No.
Mr. Farley: I am sorry. I thought you were at
cross-purposes.
Mr. Michael: I was trying to bring out there was
quite a variation in the extent of wear on the ends.
The Witness: There is some variation. There
was a 15 to 35 thousandths variation, roughly speak-
ing.
Q. (By Mr. Michael, continuing): As far as the wear
extended we will say, it necessitated your grinding, and
you ground (1776) across the whole face of the tool, didn’t
yout A. That is right.
Q. The whole end of the tool? A. That is right.
Q. Down to the line where the wear ceased to show?
A. That is right.
Q. And, if you had 12 tools mounted in that fixture,
you would have to grind to that extent, before you finished
the job? Your wheel would have to be fed in or up to
that point before you finished the 12 tools? A. Not nec-
essarily. We would send in a box of tools—I don’t recall
how many in a box—but, I imagine around 50, and the
fellow at the grinding machine would sort those out. He
would take the ones just worn a little bit, and grind not
so much off of those as the ones that were worn more.
Q. Who ground the tools, do you know? Is he still
out there? A. Yes, sir, he is.
Q. Who is he? A. One fellow’s name is Mr. Jack
Frost; he is working now in the clutch department in
the motor building.
Mr. Michael: That is all.
Re-Dimecr Examination by Mr. Farley.
Q. If the man on that tool-grinding job didn’t have
sense enough as a toolmaker when he was going to start
grinding these shaper tools to pick out and sort the
ones with the small amount of wear from the ones with
the greatest amount of wear, do you think he would stay
in the tool room very long? A. I don’t think so.
(1777) The Master: What difference would that
make if you could adjust it?
946 Colloquy of Master and Counsel
A. I don’t believe, your Honor, that you quite under-
stand this. Supposing we have this tool run down 1/32
of an inch, and the next tool was only worn out five-thou-
sandths. Supposing this man took the 8 tools out and set
them in the grinder. He would take off 1/32 of an inch
off of this particular tool. On the other hand, if you had
a box of tools of 50, he would look them over in a hurry
and set them in the machine, and he sees fit to grind so
much off, and then to run along and set the grinder at the
back edge of the tool.
The Master: He might use a little extra time, but
he wouldn’t damage the tools any.
A. That is right. Is that clear enough?
(1781) Mr. Farley: Now, in view of Mr. McEvoy’s
testimony yesterday afternoon, and Mr. Michael’s cross
examination of him, and the inferences that might be
had from Mr. Michael’s cross examination, I am going
to suggest this morning that we have a departure from
ordinary practice, and I am going to ask your Honor
to swear me as a fact witness.
Mr. Michael suggested or, rather, insinuated, by
his cross examination of Mr. McEvoy, that the Ford
Motor Company had been invited to join this particu-
lar settlement. I came here on December Ist, 1929,
and have been in charge of the entire patent litigation
of the Ford Company since that time; and, it was in
1930 that these negotiations for settlement occurred.
Mr. Michael: I take exception to that, your Honor.
They occurred, as far as we were concerned, they were
opened in July, 1929. That is when the meeting was
had between the manufacturers, and that is when the
meeting was had with us,
Mr. Farley: Were you present at the meeting in
July, 19299
Mr. Michael: I was.
Mr. Farley: Very well. That was not according—
I refer your Honor to the commanications in the ree-
ord, read into (1782) the record by Mr. Cooper, during
the cross examination, I am sure, of Mr. Crawford.
I refer to page 319 of Volume I. I don’t think it is
necessary to again re-read the Exhibit 66, which is
Colloquy of Master and Cou
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.