# Appendix — Ex parte Phillips

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385610_0072%3A03

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1943
- **Citation:** 320 U.S. 714

## 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— = . * *

(2196) Henninc Ounrn 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. Your name, please? A. Henning Ohrn.

Q. Where do you live, Mr. Ohrn? A. 5948 South
Campbell Avenue.

Q. And, what is your occupation? A. General Fore-
man.

Q. By whom are you employed? A. International
Harvester Company, the tractor works.

Q. How long have you worked for International Har-
vester? A. 28 years.

Q. In connection with your duties at International
Harvester, did you ever have anything to do with the cam
shaft department? A. Yes. In 1919 to 1922 I was in
charge of that department as a foreman.

Q. How was the International Harvester Company
machining the cams (2197) of the cam shafts when you
went into the department as foreman? cam,

m asking
ie surface
ll not the
1 want to

inute. If
n there—
e cam 43,
ould turn
the cam

e cam 43
e cam 43
is all you

than the
’ the cam

the shape
mn to the
yes.

-then, 44
cis of the

Michael’s

ter.)

iny ques-
swer one
‘faxis of

a’t know
‘is would

Charles Hajovich, Cross Examination 1161

Q. You say you are a general foreman? A. I am
foreman.

Q. And, you don’t know what the axis of the work
is? A. Well, I was just explaining it.

Q. What do you think I mean by ‘‘axis of the work’’
in this drawing here that we are looking at? A. While the
shaft is being turned, that is what it is. The shaft revolves.
That is the axis.

Q. Well, instead of axis I will say center of the work.
That means this exact center of the shaft? A. Exact
center; naturally, when it is revolving.

Q. The work revolves about its center? A. Yes.

Q. And I use ‘‘axis’’ and ‘‘center’’ interchangeably?
A. Yes; center of the work.

Mr. Michael: Now, we will read the question.

(The last question was thereupon read by the
reporter.)

The Reporter (Reading): ‘‘Q. In other words,
you have to have 44—then 44 must move the tool
point with reference to the axis of the work?”’

(There was no response.)

Q. (By Mr. Michael, continuing): Do you understand
my question, Mr. Hajovich? We were talking about the
cam 48, the roller 46, and the point of the tool, and you said
just taking those elements that the point of the tool would
then follow a path which corresponded more to the shape
of the cam 43 than it would to the shape of the cam you
wanted to cut. That is as I understood you. And, that
you would need the cam 44 in order (2241) to correct that
shape, and make the tool point follow the work that you
want to get? A. You have to have either that or a dif-
ferent shape, but it has to be one that will work the tool,
so it will work the tool, because unless you move the tool
you are turning around, you won’t be making the cam.

Q. Why wouldn’t you? <A. Because, it would be
turning around; the tool will be stationary.

Q. Even though you have the cam 43? A. Cam 45
would follow—the tool, then, would be very much like the
cam 43, but it won’t get exactly the right shape, but it will
be very much like it.

1162 Charles Hajovich, Cross Examination

Q. But, with the addition of the cam 44, then, it is your
testimony you would get the right shape? A. Providing
that that cam is working right.

Q. Providing the cam 44 is working right? A. Yes;
if it is so designed the tool could follow the shape of the
cam.

Q. And it is your testimony that it was the move-
ment of the roller 53 over the high point of the cam 44 that
caused the trouble in the turning of the work? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, how would that cause the trouble, or how
would that affect the tool? A. Because, as I say, the
design of that cam was such that it was impossible for that
roller to follow.

Q. Would it be your opinion just looking at a ma-
chine operated of that kind you know it wouldn’t work to
cut a cam? (2242) A. Well, it would have to be tried just
as we did. Just looking at it, it does not always answer it.

Q. Did you have anything to do with the purchase of
the machine? A. No.

Q. Did you operate the machine? A. I didn’t operate
it myself. We had a man do that.

Q. And, these Walcott machines you bought in 1926,
was it? A. Yes.

Q. What kind of tool—did they have tools that moved
in and out and tilted up and down? A. They have a whole
tool-holder movement; not only the tool itself. The tool-
holder is entirely different than the one we are looking at.
It slides back and forth, operated by a cam that we are
making, and there are cams on it that also work the tool
up and down.

Q. Well, when did you buy the Walcott machines?
A. In 1926 we got the first one.

Q. What kind of heads did they have on them? Did
the tool move up and down then, or did it rock? <A. It
rocked at first.

Q. When did you put on these new heads? A. I be-
lieve in 1929.

Q. Late in 1929? A. That I wouldn’t know.

Q. Do you know why they were put on? A. As I
understand it, it was a new tool designed by the Walcott
people. It was brought in to be put to work. But, that
tool that we had first, it rocked, but it wasn’t the prin-
ciple of this.

7%, 8 PELL LOPE CTI RTI BEE FF

peut hee — ,
PES POE PEE RE PON TS oe LE PIE shad ath faa k FREESE

Charles Hajovich, Cross Examination 1163

(2243) Mr. Farley: The tool you had first on the
Walcott machine rocked, but it wasn’t the principle of
the Gordon machine?

A. That is right. That tool, when the roller went
down, the tool went up. In other words, rocked in this
motion (indicating). This one works in the same direction,
when your roller goes up, so does your tool.

Q. (By Mr. Michael): I don’t just follow you there.
When what roller goes up? A. I am referring to this one.

Mr. Farley: 53.

A. When it goes up, so will the tool.

Q. (By Mr. Michael, continuing): In the Walcott?
A. So will the tool. When the roller rises, so will the tool.
The Walcott people, they made the machine, it worked
this way.

Q. I thought you were talking about Walcott. You
say when the roller drops, the tool drops? A. On the
Gordon machine. When the roller goes down, so does the
tool. On Walcott, when the roller goes down, the tool goes
down.

Q. Just explain to me how the Gordon tool can go
down when the roller goes up. A. Here you are revolving
this here. When this goes up, this goes down, don’t it?
When that goes down, the tool goes up.

Q. You mean it tilts the tool up. How about the point
of the tool? A. You are tilting the point of the tool. That
is what I am telling you.

Q. Does the point of the tool go up? A. In the same
direction as the roller.

(2244) Q. Isee. Did you have anything to do with the
difficulties with the Gordon machine? A. Yes.

Q. Did you supervise any of the work on it? A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever have any trouble with the eccentric,
the pump eccentric, cutting the pump eccentric? A. The
pump eccentric was all right; that we didn’t have much
trouble with.

Q. Didn’t you have any trouble with it? A. With the
pump eccentric, that was perfectly round.

Q. How about the timing of the cams? A. The timing
was off altogether.

Q. The timing was off. Do you remember them com-
ing there and putting a new set of master cams on, or re-

1164 Charles Hajovich, Cross Examination

positioning them with keys? A. You are referring now to
Gordon?

Q. Yes. A. Well, we had a man there. He did many
things, and as a rule when we have trouble, the man when
he was called in, then, of course, he was the man to show
us what has to be done, and how to operate it, which he
failed in. He tried, and what he made was no better than
the one we made.

Q. What did you do to the machine? Or, what do you
know that your men did to the machine? A. Well, he tried
everything. He replaced some parts.

Q. You are speaking of the Gordon man now? A.
Yes. They were grinding the tools different; set them up
and try them. Whatever he did, when the shaft was taken
out (2245) and checked, it was found not right. The shape
of the cam was always wrong.

Q. All the way around or just in these two places?
A. At the nose.

Q. On each side of the nose? A. Side of the nose.

Q. Was there a counter-shaft on the machine? A.
No, sir. Now, wait a minute, there was a counter-shaft, belt-
driven.

Q. The counter-shaft was on the machine? A. No.
Above on the ceiling.

Q. Did you have any trouble with the counter-shaft?
A. No. That is simple. There was only one belt to pull it.
There was no trouble with pulling.

Q. Did any of the springs on the machine break? A. I
don’t recall that. I don’t think so.

Q. Well, you do recall, as I understand you, that you
had this machine in there two or three months trying to
make it work, and finally you abandoned it? A. Yes.

Q. And, according to some records here, the machine
was scrapped in 1927? A. Well, I tell you, the machine
was moved out of the department and stored where we store
all the obsolete machinery, and was standing in there until
it was junked, or whatever they did with it. As I under-
stand it, it was sold for scrap.

Mr. Michael: Track 297. That is all.
Mr. Farley: That is all.

(Witness excused.)

Albert Kipta, Direct Examination 1165

(2246) Axsert Kipta was thereupon called as a wit-
ness in 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. Kipta? A. 3437 Jackson
Boulevard.

Q. Chicago? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, you work for International Harvester? A.
Right.

Q. What is your position out there? A. Well, I bal-
ance all the crankshafts, flywheels, and I have other special
work to attend to besides that.

Q. Are you employed as a foreman out there? A.
No.

Q. How long have you worked for the International
Harvester? A. Well, I started with the International Har-
vester Company in 1912, the 12th of October, and I left once
or twice there; twice.

Q. Were you employed there in 1920? A. Yes.

Q. Did you have anything to do with a Gordon cam-
turning machine? A. I was the operator.

Q. And, you remember the machine? A. Yes, I re-
member the machine.

Q. Could you state in a general way just what ex-
perience you had with that machine at International Har-
vester? A. Well, I operated it for several weeks, and
never turned out a (2247) shaft that would be suitable to
our company.

Q. Did you operate or attempt to operate the machine
when it first came in? A. Well, I can’t really recall
whether it was the first day or so after the machine was set
up or not, but I was the first operator on the machine.

Q. And, had you had any particular experience in
operating machines before that? A. Oh, yes. I served my
time as apprentice.

Q. Apprentice machinist? A. That is right.

Q. Where did you serve your time? A. Well, I used
to be with the Excelsior Company; that is the name of the
company now. Previous to that it used to be a bicycle com-

pany. It used to be on Randolph, and I just can’t recall the
street.

OP ey ee ee

1166 Albert Kipta, Direct Examination

Q. You say you never turned a shaft suitable for use
for your company, or something to that effect? A. Yes.

Q. What was the trouble with the shafts, with the
machine, that you couldn’t use them? A. I don’t know if
there was any trouble with the shafts or not. I think the
trouble was with the machine. It would either leave a big
hump on the cam, or cut the nose off the cam.

Q. Did you know enough about machinery to attempt
to adjust the machine, or to overcome that trouble? A.
Yes, we tried to do everything we possibly could.

Q. What if anything do you remember attempting to
do? A. Such as adjusting the tools to a set position.

(2248) Q. What were you using at that time in the
International Harvester place to machine your cam shafts?
A. What were we using?

Q. Yes. A. We were rough-grinding the crankshafts.

Q. Cam shafts? A. Cam shafts. I am working on
crankshafts; I get that a little bit mixed up.

Q. Did you ever try at any time to take two cuts on
this Gordon machine? A. Yes.

Q. And did you, yourself, make the adjustments on the
machine by means of which you could do that? A. Well,
we always had some assistant to help us in making the
adjustment.

The Master: How did you take the two cuts, by
re-setting the tool on the second cut, or simply run
through with the same set?

A. You couldn’t very well do it with the same set, be-
cause you wouldn’t be taking off any stock. You would
have to re-set the tools.

Q. (By Mr. Farley, continuing): You don’t remem-
ber what mechanism there was, if any, there to let you re-set
the tools of the Gordon machine? A. No, I really can’t
recall that.

Q. But, there was some sort of a mechanism? A. Yes.

Q. Would you personally make the adjustment to see
you were getting your cams the size you wanted them on
the machine, or (2249) did you have some other machine
setter? A. Well, I have done it, yes. I have done it.

Q. On the Gordon machines? A. On the Gordon ma-
chines.

Albert Kipta, Cross Examination 1167

Q. Now, did the machine work any better when you
would take two cuts off? A. No, I can’t say that it di.

Q. And, even with the two cuts, would you still get the
hollow on one side and the hump on the other side of the
eam? A. That is right.

Q. I didn’t have Mr. Hajovich identify these draw-
ings, but did you know these cam shaft drawings there?
Do you recognize them as any cam shafts you ever made at
the International Harvester (handing documents to wit-
ness)? They are Exhibits 310 and 311. A. We didn’t
have any other shaft at the time I was there except that
one shaft.

Q. Is that a cam shaft such as shown in this Exhibit
310? A. Well, I don’t know really. I think the number
of the shaft, job number, I think was 8049-T. If I can—

Q. (Interposing): That is the number on this par-
ticular drawing, is it not? A. I can’t see that very well,
because I haven’t got my glasses, but that is what the
number was.

Mr. Farley: I think that is all. You may cross
examine.

Cross Examination by Mr. Michael.

Q. You say you took two cuts on the Gordon machine?
(2250) A. We could take two cuts, yes.

Q. How could you? A. Well, that is something that
I really can’t recall right now, but I know we tried to take
two cuts on it.

Q. You said you tried to? A. Yes.

Q. Did you succeed? A. Well, evidently we didn’t,
because we couldn’t very well use the machine. It didn’t
do any good to do it.

Q. Did you take two cuts? A. Yes. We have tried
it.

Q. Well, how did you do it, then? What did you
do then to the machine in order to take two cuts? A. Well,
we would have to set the tool up in some way.

Q. How? A. That I can’t really tell you.

Q. Do you know how the tool was mounted in the
machine? A. Yes. It was a circle tool, and on an arm.

Q. What held the tool on the arm? A. There is a
screw that held the tool in the arm.

1168 Albert Kipta, Cross Examination

Q. Just how would you go about taking two cuts with
it? A. Well, I really don’t know just how we would ex-
plain that, because I really can’t tell you offhand how I
have done it. But, it was either setting the tool one way
or another, or there was some adjustment to it.

Q. There was an adjustment on the tool that you could
move it out or in, is that it? A. Not in or out, but you
could turn the tool, either lower or higher. I think there
were some adjustments there that I (2251) couldn’t recall.
But, I know we have tried to take two cuts.

Q. And, you did take two cuts? A. Yes.

Q. How much metal did you take off on the second
eut? A. That I really don’t know.

Q. You are sure you took it by adjusting the tool?
A. Yes.

The Master: Are you sure you adjusted the tool
rather than simply taking another cut without adjust-
ing it?

A. Well, I don’t know how you could take another
cut if you didn’t adjust the tool.

The Master: I am wondering if you definitely
recall that, or just simply remember you took two cuts,
and you think you couldn’t take two cuts in any other
way, and therefore you must have done it that way. Do
you recall actually making readjustments?

A. Yes, there was some adjustment there.

Q. (By Mr. Michael, continuing): Was there some
adjustment on the machine when it was delivered? A. I
don’t know whether it was on the machine or on the tool,
but I know we took two cuts, and made some changes
there.

Q. What other changes? A. That I don’t know.

Q. How long did you work with the machine? A.
Anywhere from five to eight weeks off and on.

Q. How long every day, for instance? A. Well, we
put in a nine-hour day.

Q. How many shafts did you turn on the machine a
day? <A. Well, not very many, because—we always had
the machine, (2252) trouble with the machine.

Q. How many would you say? A. That I couldn’t
tell you.

Albert Kipta, Cross Examination 1169

Q. You don’t know whether it was two or a hundred?
A. Well, we have tried more than two, and we didn’t
make a hundred. We wouldn’t go to that expense of scrap-
ping all those shafts.

Q. It was all scrap? A. That is right.

Q. You never got a good shaft on the machine? A.
That is right, we never got a good shaft on the machine.

Q. You never even turned one good cam on the ma-
chine? A. Well, I don’t say we didn’t turn one good
cam, but the cam shaft was no good after we got through
turning it.

Q. It just was scrap? A. That is right.

Q. The shafts you put into the machine were good
shafts? A. They were forged shafts, yes.

Q. Regular standard shafts? A. That is right.

Q. And, when they came out they were all scrap? A.
When we turned them on the machine they were all scrap.

Q. All scrap. Would you recognize a drawing of one
of the cutting units of a Gordon machine if you saw it now?
A. I think I could.

Q. Look at this drawing here, 47-A. Do you recognize
that (handing document to witness)? A. Well, I can’t see
this so well.

Q. Haven’t you got your glasses? (2253) A. No, I
haven’t.

Q. Do you suppose mine would help you any? A. I
don’t know whether they would or not. I really can’t see
this very plain, to tell you the truth.

Q. Can you see it plain enough to tell us how you took
two cuts on it, or did you take two cuts? A. No, I can’t.

Q. Can you see it well enough to know you couldn’t
take two cuts? A. No, I couldn’t see that at all.

Mr. Farley: Do you want me to tell you how you
can take two cuts? I know machines; I can tell you.

Mr. Michael: Well, you would have to add some-
thing to it, I think.

Mr. Farley: I think I will leave that for argu-
ment.

Q. (By Mr. Michael, continuing): Did you see a Gor-
don machine operated in any other plant? A. No, I
haven’t.

1170 Albert Kipta, Cross Examination

Q. Did you work with the Gordon man when he came
to remedy the trouble? A. Well, no, I didn’t work with
him, but I watched him for a while. I was on the floor.

Q. After he spent some time with the machine did it
work, did he get it working? A. Well, if I recall, I be-
lieve that the man really left the machine, and it wasn’t in
any better condition than when we called this man to come
in.

Mr. Michael: That is all.
Mr. Farley: That is all.

(A discussion was had off the record.)

(2254) Mr. Ohrn: May I say a word?

Mr. Farley: Yes.

Mr. Ohrn: I just wanted to point out that we
have much trouble, and Mr. Lander would go to any
extreme to make that machine work. And, if he found
a way it would work, he would rebuild the whole ma-
chine in order that we could use it.

The Master: You say he would do that because he
felt he was responsible for the machine for having
bought it?

Mr. Ohrn: Yes.

The Master: What was it you wanted to say?

Mr. Hajovich: In regard to that two cuts, when
the trouble arises it don’t have to be on that particular
machine, but as it was on this, when the men come in
to try to make it work, the distinction was whether
it was because too much stock was removed on the cam,
so it was tried by taking a lighter cut, to see if the
shape would change on a cam with the lighter cut, but
that machine was not built to take two cuts. It was
built to take one cut.

Mr. Farley: Do you know whether it was possible
or not to fix the machine so that it could take two cuts?

Mr. Kipta: To take two cuts on that Gordon ma-
chine, it would have to be rebuilt entirely. As it was,
there was an adjustment, but no such thing that it
would adjust itself like the Melling cam lathe does.
That is built for two cuts; the Gordon did not have
that.

Mr. Farley: I guess that is all.
(The witness was thereupon excused.)

William D. Hunt, Re-Direct Examination 1171

(2258) Witu1am D. Hunt was thereupon recalled as a
witness on behalf of the Defendant herein, and having
been previously duly sworn, testified further as follows:

Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.
Mr. Farley: Will you mark these, please.

(Two documents were thereupon marked Defend-
ant’s Exhibits 312 and 313, respectively, by the re-
porter.)

Q. You are the same Mr. Hunt who testified here be-
fore? A. Yes, sir.

Q. I would just like to ask you, Mr. Hunt, about the
machines that you supplied to the Ford Motor Company,
Walcott machines supplied to the Ford Motor Company,
and I show you a copy of the Melling Patent No. 1,512,995,
which I have had marked Exhibit No. 312.

(Handing document to the witness.)

Are you familiar with that patent, and, if so, would
you please (2259) state whether or not the machines which
you supplied to the Ford Motor Company had that con-
struction in it for the purpose of taking two cuts? A. Yes,
sir. I am familiar with that, and those machines were so
constructed.

Mr. Farley: I would like to offer this in evidence
as Exhibit No. 312. That is Patent 1,512,995.

Mr. Michael: That is already in.

Mr. Farley: Not that particular one.

Mr. Michael: What is the number of it?

Mr. Farley: 1,512,995.

Mr. Michael: Oh, I see.

Mr. Farley: I might state for the purpose of the
record that the other Melling patent, which we intro-
duced in evidence as Exhibit 209, was Melling Patent
1,655,655, is drawn to the proposition of the manner in
which the teol is moved in the Walcott machines,
whereas this patent has to do entirely with the mecha-
nism for having the machine perform two cuts.

The Master: Any objection to the admission of
that?

1172 William D. Hunt, Re-Direct Examination

Mr. Michael: I don’t know what the purpose of
the offer is. What is it being offered for? I don’t see
any relevancy.

Mr. Farley: The purpose of the offer—do you
want to hear from me now?

The Master: Yes, state what your purpose is.

Mr. Farley: The purpose of the offer is, it goes to
the matter of apportionment of profits. There are two
features to the Melling machine that the Patent Office
has granted (2260) patents upon, therefore recogniz-
ing them as patentable improvements, and that is the
purpose.

The Master: If the only objection is relevancy, I
will admit the exhibit.

Q. (By Mr. Farley, continuing): Now, Mr. Hunt, with
respect to the machines that were sold to the Ford Motor
Company, the Walcott machines, my understanding is that
all of those machines had a tilting tool in them? A. Yes,
sir.

Q. Did the Walcott Company always continue to man-
ufacture machines of that particular type? <A. No, the
Walcott Machine Company are now manufacturing ma-
chines with the parallel type tool-holders, in which the
tools do not tilt.

Q. And, just how do the tools move in the type of
machines that you are now manufacturing? A. The type
of machines that are now being manufactured, known as
the parallel type tool-holders, the tool is held parallel in
all positions by the arm that carries the top part of the tool-
holder, and an arm mounted a short distance below that,
those two arms being so fastened that they are parallel to
each other, therefore causing the holder that carries the
tool to always remain in a parallel position.

Q. I show you a copy of Melling Patent No. 1,634,550,
which I have had marked Exhibit No. 313, and will you
please state whether or not the mechanism which you just
described is as shown in that patent (handing document to
witness)? A. This patent is the parallel type tool-holder
machine.

(2261) Q. Now, are you familiar with machines of the
Walcott Company that were sold to, and are in use by, the

International Harvester Company at their Chicago plant?
A. Yes, sir.

William D. Hunt, Re-Direct Examination 1173

Q. And, will you state whether or not, or, will you
state which type of machines they are, whether they are of
the tilting tool type, or the type shown in the patent, Ex-
hibit No. 313? A. The machines now in use in the Chicago
plant are the parallel type tool-holders.

Q. And, are they like the mechanism shown in this
patent? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Have you any blue-prints of the Walcott Company
that illustrate that mechanism? A. I have the print, as-
sembly print, of our present tool-holder of the parallel
type.

Mr. Farley: I wonder if you would produce it,
please.

(The document above-referred to was thereupon
produced by the witness.)

Mr. Farley: Will you mark this, please, Mr. Re-
porter?

(The document above-referred to was thereupon
marked as Defendant’s Exhibit 314 by the reporter.)

Q. (By Mr. Farley, continuing): You have produced
blue-print of the Walcott Machine Company, drawing No.
(-2129, which I have had the reporter mark Exhibit 314.
Will you please state whether or not that shows the same
mechanism as is described in the patent, Exhibit No. 313?
A. This construction is exactly the same, as far as the
principle is concerned, as the one shown in Patent 1,634,550
with the upper arm carrying the top part of the tool-holder,
and the (2262) short parallel link below it causing this
tool-holder to travel in a parallel motion as it is moved
back and forth by the overhead tool control cam.

Mr. Farley: Perhaps you would like to look at
this, Mr. Spohn (handing document to Mr. Spohn).
Mr. Spohn: All right.

Q. Now, is the mechanism shown in the blue-print,
Exhibit 314, the type of mechanism which the Walcott
Company is now supplying to purchasers concerning which
Mr. Michael asked you several questions when you were
here last? A. Nearly all of the tool-holders now built are
of the parallel type construction.

Q. You have made some improvement in the machine
in recent years, however? A. Yes. The machines have

1174 William D. Hunt, Re-Cross Examination

been improved; the location of the overhead cam has been
changed, which makes it better to make a tool control cam
or better construction.

Q. Are you familiar with the so-called Blanchard
principle of operation? A. As I understand the Blanchard
principle of operation it is practically the same as the par-
allel type construction I have here.

Q. Now, will you state whether or not, in employing
the Blanchard principle as it is used in the Walcott ma-
chines, it is essential or necessary to tilt the tools? A. The
fact that we are turning cams successfully with the parallel
type tool would seem to me to prove conclusively that it is
not necessary to tilt the tool.

Mr. Farley: I offer Exhibits 313 and 314 in evi-
dence.

(2263) Mr. Spohn: Are they still on the question
of apportionment, those same two offers?

Mr. Farley: Yes.

Mr. Spohn: We just object on the same grounds
as the others, your Honor, the materiality and relevan-
ey of them.

The Master: I think the materiality of these may
be a little more remote than the other exhibit, but I
will admit them in evidence.

Mr. Farley: I might state, your Honor please, on
that point, so that you might understand my reasons
for producing these, you will recall that the witnesses
Hajovich and Kipta of the International Harvester
Company described how the machines in their plant,
that the tools moved straight up and down, and I
thought it would clarify the record if I had actual
showings as to just what that movement was.

The Master: All right.

Mr. Farley: That is all. You may cross examine.

Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Michael.

Q. Mr. Hunt, do you still sell some of these Melling
type of machines where the tool tilts? A. There are occa-
sionally tool jobs that go out with the tilting tool. I be-
lieve there are some firms that have permission to use the
tilting tool if they so desire.

Q. It is only in connection with orders from concerns
of that kind that you supply the tilting tool? A. Yes, sir.

4
= oz oik
ti si P

William D. Hunt, Re-Cross Examination 1175

Q. And, you supply the machines of the parallel hold-
er type to (2264) non-licensees, is that it? A. Well, I
wouldn’t say exactly that, because we are furnishing the
parallel type tool to companies that are also licensed to use
the tilting type tool.

Q. And, do you furnish such companies with the slid-
ing type of tool on new machines, or on machines they al-
ready have? A. Well, we furnish most of the new—prac-
tically all of the new machines that go from our plant are
with the parallel type heads. Some of the old machines are
repaired, rebuilt, and where they have the tilting type
heads, the repaired or new heads required on that machine
are of the tilting type. Or, again, they sometimes change
over and go to all the one type, or the parallel type heads.

Q. Then, on all orders for new machines, at the pres-
ent time, you supply the parallel type head? A. We built
all that type this last year; there were not any type new ma-
chines that went out without the parallel type on in the last
year.

Q. How long has that been your practice? A. Well,
that is according to the customer, whether he has a license
to use the tilting type, and which is it. If he wishes the
tilting type, and because of the fact he had them previous
to that, why, if he orders them he gets them.

Q. Is the production the same on each type? A. Well,
on our latest design of the type KT, because of the shape
of the overhead or tool control shaft, we are able to turn
more cams than we are on the old tilting type machine.

Q. And that improvement was made when? A. I
can’t give you the exact date. It is within the last eight
(2265) years, I believe.

Q. Within the last what? A. Eight years.

Q. That you have been selling the latest improved
type of sliding— A. (Interrupting) I couldn’t give you
the exact date of that.

Mr. Farley: It is approximately eight years?
The Witness: I believe it is.

Q. (By Mr. Michael, continuing): That takes us back
to 1931? A. Yes. I rather think we could get—it might
not be quite then. I would have to look that up, but it is
right around that date.

Ba eae a fa a ES OLE PRS AP EOIN HS TRS EMER EIS I. LE Me NNT STB

1176 William D. Hunt, Re-Cross Examination

Q. Then, it is your testimony as early as 1931 you
were offering the trade a machine of the type shown in this
blue-print, Exhibit 314, which gave more production than
the production of the machines with the tilting tool? A.
This head as so constructed here was put out in 1929; this
type here (indicating).

Mr. Farley: Referring to Exhibit 314?

A. Exhibit 314 was put out in 1929.

Q. That didn’t embody the improvement? A. That
didn’t take the latest improvement, no.

Q. Then, beginning in 1931 you sold machines em-
bodying the latest improvement, which machines gave a
production greater than the tilting tools? A. Yes.

Q. And, how many of the tilting tool type would you
say you sold since 19317 A. I wouldn’t state, because I
haven’t any idea.

Q. Would it be five, or ten, or more? (2266) A. I
wouldn’t care to say. When I was here before I made a
statement as to the number of machines we had sold in the
past year. When I went back to Jackson I asked them to
look up and see how many of the machines were of the
tilting type. There wasn’t any. That is as far as I asked.
So, I am not—I wouldn’t know.

Q. You only asked about the last year’s? A. Yes. I
guessed about the last year, and I asked about the number
of the tilting type machines that had been sold in that year.
So, I am not familiar enough with that to answer it.

Q. When did you sell—how many of the machines did
you sell to International Harvester Company? A. Over
a period of years there is, I imagine, around five.

Q. Cam turning machines? A. Yes, sir.

Q. When did you sell them the first one? A. That was
back in 1926, I believe.

Q. When did you sell them the others? A. Well, along
over a period of years. The first one was, of course, the
first one was the old type of tilting tool.

Q. And then you later changed the heads on that ma-
chine, didn’t you? A. Yes, sir.

Q. When did you change them? A. That would be
after ’29, or during ’29. I don’t know the records.

Q. Do you know why you changed them? A. No, oth-
er than that they purchased them.

a

William D. Hunt, Re-Cross Examination 1177

(2267) Q. Were they changed at your invitation, or
did the company direct that they be changed on the first
machine? A. Well, I am in the engineering department;
and, of course, the sales department, I have no connection
with that in the way of selling, so I wouldn’t know whether
International Harvester Company approached us, or wheth-
er we approached them.

Q. On the heads you gave them in exchange or to re-
place the tilting tool type, did that embody the latest im-
provements that you have now? A. That is this type as
shown here on Exhibit 314.

Q. How did the production of that type compare with
the tilting tool type? A. They were practically the same.

Q. Well, were they the same? A. I would think they
would be.

Q. You would get just as many shafts on one ma-
chine as you would on the other? A. Yes.

Q. Then, why would you say they changed? What
was the change made for? A. I presume the change was
made because of the new patent issue.

Q. What do you mean by that? A. There was a new
patent issued on this type of head.

Q. You never make changes in new machines until
your patents issue? A. Yes, we make a lot of changes with-
out having patents.

Q. What do you mean you suppose you made it be-
cause there was a new patent issue? A. We had a new type
of head and a new patent was allowed; therefore, (2268)
those heads were used on the new machines, or any replace-
ments.

Q. Do you recall why you designed the new type of
head? A. Because there was a patent suit pending in re-
gard to the old type of head.

Q. Prior to the time you designed this new improve-
ment on the sliding—what do you call it, parallel type of
head? A. This is the parallel type head.

Q. Prior to the time you designed the new improve-
ment on that, that gave you the increased production, did
any of the authorized licensees of the tilting tool type
change over to the other type of head? A. Yes, sir, be-
cause most of those have this type of head. The new im-
proved type is an entirely new machine, and you couldn’t
put this head on the old machine.

1178 William D. Hunt, Re-Cross Examination

Mr. Farley: The witness refers to the Exhibit 314
when he says ‘‘this.’’

A. Yes. This 314 is the head that went on all of the
old type machines that have been replaced.

Mr. Farley: Off the record a minute.
(A discussion was thereupon had off the record.)

The Witness (producing document): There is no
difference in the principle of the machine you see here.
Here in this case your overhead cam contacts this roll
here if the distance from here to here is greater than
the distance from here to your pivot, this cam has to
have a larger throw on it. This roll is located directly
over the cam, and the throw on the roll, or overhead
cam that controls that roll, is (2269) equal to the dis-
tance of the rise and fall of your tool.

This construction is exactly the same as this, as far
as the principle is concerned, both parallel type heads.

Q. (By Mr. Michael, continuing): He is comparing Ex-
hibit 314 with a new print he has just produced, marked
KT-530A, and as I understand your testimony, this print
KT-530A discloses or shows the newest type of head, is
that right? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, you say they are both of the same principle?
A. Both of the same principle.

Q. And, they are both the same as the Blanchard prin-
ciple? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And how about the tilting tool type of head, is
that also the same principle as these? A. The tool does
not tilt, and in the old type the tool does tilt. In that the
principle is different.

Q. I am asking you, rather broadly, now, is the prin-
ciple of the tilting tool type head the same as the Blanch-
ard principle? A. Well, it has the same movements.

Q. I am asking you if it is the same principle? A. I
believe it is.

Q. In other words, the same principle as these? A.
No.

Q. These, you say, are like Blanchard’s? A. These
are like Blanchard’s, but this does not tilt the tool, and the
fact that the other one does makes the two heads different.

Q. In principle? A. If one tilts, and the other doesn’t,
it will differ.

Wis:

auth
mM S's

William D. Hunt, Re-Cross Examination 1179

(2270) Q. The tilting tool type of head is not on the
Blanchard principle? A. No, I didn’t say that.

Q. What do you say? It is? A. I believe you can
construe it to be of the Blanchard type.

Q. And this print, Exhibit 314, is also of the Blanchard
principle? A. This is the Blanchard principle.

Q. And, the one you just produced? A. That is the
same principle as this.

Q. Then, all three of them are the same principle?
A. With the exception of one tilts the tool, and the other
does not.

Q. I understand, but that is a detail, isn’t it? They
are all the same principle? A. Well, I don’t know wheth-
er you would call that a detail, or whether it is a major
construction of the head.

Q. Are they all the same principle? Are they all the
same principle as Blanchard’s? <A. I am not a patent at-
torney.

Q. Iam not asking you as a patent attorney. A. And,
I am not in a position to answer a technical question of that
type. I am not that, and I don’t care to answer that, be-
cause I am not—I haven’t studied patents enough. I can
tell the construction of these different heads. When you
go into the matter of minor or minute details of that, |
don’t know if I am absolutely qualified to answer.

Q. I am not going into minute details. I don’t want
to consider details. You said, in answer to Mr. Farley, this
was a great deal on the Blanchard principle? A. Yes, sir.

(2271) Q. Is it? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is this one KT-530A? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is the tilting tool head? A. The difference in the
construction of these—

Q. (Interposing): I am talking about principle now,
not construction. A. The fact that this contacts the roller
here is the same as in the tilting type. The fact that this
arm operates around a center is of the same type as the tilt-
ing type, but when you get to the point of the tool, one
tilting and the other parallel, there is the only difference
in these two heads, as far as principle is concerned.

Q. Between what two heads? A. This head and the
tilting type head.

Q. 314 and the tilting type? A. Yes. The difference
is one has the parallel type tool that does not tilt, and the
other does, and holds your cutting angle.

1180 William D. Hunt, Re-Cross Examination

Q. But, are they, or are they not, the same principle
as Blanchard? A. I told you that I didn’t feel I was
qualified to answer technical points.

Q. Then, when you told— A. (Interrupting): This
point is a matter of construction. This from here and the
others, there is the difference in those heads. If the
Blanchard principle does not require the tilting of one, and
the parallel of the other, if that doesn’t make a difference,
then they are both alike.

(2272) Q. Then, when you told Mr. Farley this Ex-
hibit 314 was made on the Blanchard principle, do you want
to withdraw that, or do you want to stick to it? A. It may
be that is correct from what I have read of the Blanchard
principle.

Q. What about this one, KT-530A? A. That is the
same principle as this. The principle of those two are
exactly the same.

Q. And, they are both the same as Blanchard? <A. I
believe they are the same as Blanchard. I don’t under-
stand the part of the tilting.

The Master: You have got a good deal on that
testimony referring to that latest print. I think it
ought to be marked and admitted in evidence, at least
for the purpose of indicating what the witness is talk-
ing about.

Mr. Farley: I will ask that the drawing, KT-530A,
be marked Defendant’s Exhibit 315.

(The drawing above-referred to was thereupon
marked Defendant’s Exhibit 315 by the reporter.)

Mr. Farley: And, I offer that exhibit in evidence.

The Master: I will admit it.

Mr. Farley: I don’t know whether—was that all
you had, Mr. Michael?

Mr. Michael: No.

Mr. Farley: Pardon me.

Q. (By Mr. Michael, continuing): Do you remember
when you first made the new parallel link type of head?
A. The date on that print, I believe, is 1929. I think they
were designed the latter part of ’28.

(2273) Q. Is this the patent covering the parallel link
type of head, 1,634,550, Exhibit 313? (Handing document
to witness.) A. Yes, this is your parallel type head.

—————E—E~—“—

William D. Hunt, Re-Cross Examination 1181

Q And, you first made it in 1929? A. The date here
is 29 on this assembly, but, undoubtedly, the head was de-
signed before that.

Q. How long before? A. I would say in the latter
part of ’28. Some time during ’28.

Q. And, you think you first sold it in ’29, is that it?
A. I think either the very last part of ’28, or first part of
29.

Q. The patent, 1,634,550, Exhibit 313, was issued in
1927, wasn’t it? A. Well, the date is on there.

Q. There is the date on it, and it was filed, the applica-
tion for the patent was filed in 1926? A. Then, it must
have been designed then—started.

Q. When? At least as early as 1926? A. Yes.

Q. ‘‘Started,’? you mean completed? A. The heads,
there might not have been any of them being used. The
drawings might not have been completed and sold until
1929.

Q. You know they weren’t sold before 1929, don’t
you? A. I would think they weren’t.

Q. You know they weren’t? A. I would have to look
up the records.

Q. And, you know why they weren’t sold until 1929,
don’t you? A. I don’t remember the dates. I know when
they started to sell them; yes, sir.

Q. Was it in relation to anything else that happened
that helped (2274) you fix that? A. I think I stated it.

Q. The patent suit, or decision of the Court of Ap-
peals? A. The patent suit; the patent pending.

Q. Do you remember the Court of Appeals deciding
the Walcott case in 1929? A. I didn’t know the date of
that.

Q. Don’t you know that that is why the company
didn’t sell these until 1929? A. They didn’t désign them
until they thought they wanted to design a different type
of head because the patent was pending.

Q. They designed them three years before 1929, didn’t
they? A. Not in our department.

Q. How do you account for this? Doesn’t that show
all of the details? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then, they had it designed three years before 1929,
didn’t they? A. They had it designed as far as the patent
was concerned, but as far as the drawings were concerned,

1182 William D. Hunt, Re-Direct Examination

I don’t think you would find the work drawings were de-
signed until later.

Q. Would it take three years to design working draw-
ings? A. No, sir.

Q. Then, why didn’t they design a working drawing
prior to 1929? A. That you would have to ask the print
room.

Q. That you don’t have any idea why, do you? A.
I could have.

Q. Have you? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is your idea? (2275) A. Because there was a
patent suit pending, that is the reason.

Q. In other words, you didn’t think well enough of
this thing shown in this patent, Exhibit 313, to make it until
you had to make it? A. Well, it cost money to bring out
a new type head.

Mr. Michael: That is all.
Mr. Farley: Just one question, Mr. Hunt.

Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Farley.

Q. I am not sure it is entirely clear as to whether or
not, when you changed over any of the machines which had
a tilting tool to the type of head shown in Exhibit 314, what
effect that had on the output or production per hour of the
machine, as to whether it increased it, or decreased it? <A.
The parallel type head as shown here, when we built those
heads and sent them out, we sent them out with the quota-
tion as we did on the tilting tool. In other words, we felt
that the machines would produce as many shafts, and have
proven to produce just as many shafts with the parallel
type head as with the tilting tool head.

Q. Did I understand you to say just then they have
proven in actual production, actual practice, they have
turned out just as many? A. Yes, sir.

Q. That has been your experience? A. Yes, sir.

Q. They actually have turned out the same produc-
tion as the ones with the tilting tool? (2276) A. Yes, sir.

Q. Just on that point now, can you state whether or
not the change to the parallel type head as shown in Ex-
hibit 314 involved any higher maintenance cost as far as
the tools were concerned? Did the tools hold up as well, if
you know, on Exhibit 314 as they did on the tilting? A.
As far as I know, the tool cost was practically the same.

Charles Gordon, Re-Direct Examination 1183

The Master: Did you make any other changes in
the machines at the time you put this new type head on
which might increase its efficiency?

A. We simply took the old heads off and replaced
them with these heads, making no other change in the ma-
chine at the time. The change in the machine was made
later when we decided to make a different type, or replace
the overhead cam in a different position in order to get a
better construction of the two control cams. That was a
later development.

Q. That is the KT model? A. Yes, sir. That was
entirely later development. These heads are interchange-
able on the machines. This head of Exhibit 314, of the
tilting type head, are interchangeable on the machines,
with the exception you have to make overhead cams when
you make heads.

Q. You have to change the overhead cam? A. You
have to change the overhead cam.

Q. When you substitute Exhibit 314 for the old tool
tilting head? A. Yes, sir. Outside of that they are the

same.
* * * ” *

(2278) Cuartes Gorpon was thereupon called as a wit-
ness on behalf of the Plaintiff herein, and having been pre-
viously duly sworn, testified further as follows:

Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Michael.

Q. Mr. Gordon, at the time of entry of the final decree
in the Walcott case, or at any other time, did you know,
or have you known, that the Walcott Company had guar-
anteed the Ford Motor Company that the Melling machines
would not infringe any patents, and had undertaken to in-
demnify and hold the Ford Motor Company harmless in
the purchase and use of those machines? A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever see the Ford purchase order for the
Walcott machines prior to this lawsuit? (2279) A. No, sir.

Q. Did you at any time have any knowledge of the
Ford Company’s practice or custom respecting patent guar-
antees? A. No, sir.

1184 Charles Gordon, Re-Direct Examination

Q. I think Mr. Farley asked you to produce the pur-
chase order for the Gordon machine. Did you make a
search for that? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you find it? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Can you produce it? A. This is the purchase order
that I found (producing document).

Q. Does that contain a patent guarantee? A. It does;
what I consider is a patent guarantee. .

Q. Down in the fine print at the bottom? A. Yes, sir.

Q. When did you first observe, or when were you first
aware that there was a patent guarantee in this order?
A. When I found it about two weeks ago, I think it was.

Q. Was the machine covered by this order that you
have produced from the Ford Company for the Gordon
machine ever paid for? A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever know that the National Automobile
Chamber of Commerce was defending, or had defended, the
Walcott Company’s suit brought by your company for in- j
fringement of the patent here in suit? A. No, sir.

Q. Have you read the testimony of the International
Ilarvester Company witnesses? A. I have.

(2280) Q. Do you recall the sale of a Gordon machine
to that company? A. I do.

Q. What company sold the machine to International
I[arvester Company? A. The Charles Gordon, Incorpo-
rated.

Q. Were you an officer of the Charles Gordon, Incor-
porated? A. I was.

Q. At the time the sale was made? <A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that company still in existence? A. No, sir.

Q. What happened to it? A. That company was dis-
solved quite a number of years ago.

Q. And, the business in these Gordon machines was
thereafter carried on by what company? A. The Produc-
tion Machine Tool Company.

Q. And, after that by what company? <A. By the
Gordon Form Lathe Company.

Q. The plaintiff in this suit? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where and by whom was the machine sold to Inter-
national Harvester Company built? A. That machine was
built by the New Process Specialty Company.

Q. They were located in Milwaukee? A. Located in
Milwaukee.

enrresr Saaaes

—

Charles Gordon, Re-Direct Examination 1185

Q. They were built under contract with Charles Gor-
don, Incorporated? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was it one of the early machines built under your
patent, or (2281) according to your invention? A. I think
it was the third or fourth machine that we built. I know it
was built by the New Process Specialty Company, and they
completed the experimental machine and built five more
under contract, and it was one, I think, of the earliest ones
that they delivered.

Q. Who, or what company, started the first experi-
mental machine? A. The Monarch Machine Company of
Milwaukee.

Q. Then, when that machine was partly completed you
took it away from them and gave it to New Process? A.
As I remember, that company was dissolved. Anyway,
they sold all their equipment, and called me up one day
and told me I would have to take anything we owned out of
their plant because they were no longer operating.

Q. And, that is when you made your connection with
this New Process Specialty Company? A. Yes, sir, we had
everything shipped over from the Monarch Machine Com-
pany over to the New Process Specialty Company.

Q. And, the New Process Specialty Company com-
pleted that first experimental machine? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And built how many more, do you know? A. Five
more.

Q. To whom, if anyone, did you sell the first experi-
mental machine? A. The original experimental machine
was sold and delivered to the Nash Motors Company,
Kenosha.

Q. And, how many more machines did New Process
build for you? (2282) A. Five.

Q. Five. And, this one that you sold to International
Harvester was one of those five? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you personally have anything to do with the
sale of the machine to International Harvester Company?
A. Idid not. It might have been that I had—I might even
have helped draw up the quotation on the machine, that we
made to them. I might even have called up the Purchasing
Department in connection with that, but I doubt very much
whether I had. I can’t recollect anything. I have tried
very hard to find out just what that connection was, whether
it was done by correspondence or otherwise.

1186 Charles Gordon, Re-Direct Examination

Q. Do you recollect definitely whether or not you had
anything to do with the machine after it was delivered?
A. I know positively I had not.

Q. You never saw the machine in the plant? <A. I
never saw the machine in the plant at any time.

Q. Who, on behalf of Charles Gordon, Incorporated,
did have anything to do with the machine after it was de-
livered to International Harvester? A. There were two
men in my employ that had something to do with it. One
of them was my son, L. W. Gordon, and the other one was
Frank C. Litchfield.

Q. Mr. Litchfield is dead now? <A. Yes, sir. That is,
I have been advised he died some three or four years ago,
but I am not sure when it was.

Q. Who, on behalf of the Charles Gordon, Incorpo-
rated, installed or (2283) demonstrated the machine after it
was delivered at the International Harvester Company?
A. L. W. Gordon was sent down there to demonstrate the
machine.

Q. Have you consulted him about the matter? A. I
lave.

Q. Did you obtain a report from him on it? A. I did.

Q. (By Mr. Michael, continuing): Did you have, or
the Charles Gordon, Incorporated, ever receive any com-
plaints or calls from International Harvester Company
about the machine after it had been set up and demon-
strated? A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. If there had been— A. (Interrupting): Pardon
me. Perhaps I should mention that we got a call, that is, I
' was advised that we had a call from my (2284) son when
he was down there demonstrating the machine that there
was an eccentric on the shaft that was to be turned, and
that eccentric was not exactly cylindrical. And, it was my
understanding that he, in some way—I don’t know how—
got in touch with Mr. Litchfield, who was the draftsman,
and had him go down there to see what the trouble was.
When he got there he found the trouble and remedied it
during the time he was demonstrating the machine.

Q. All this matter you refer to was during the demon-
stration of the machine? A. That is my understanding.

Q. Before it had been turned over to International
Harvester? A. Yes, sir.

—

Charles Gordon, Re-Direct Examination 1187

Q. Well, were there any other complaints that you
know of? A. No, sir.

Q. And, if there had been would you, as president of
the company, have known about it? A. I certainly think
I would.

Q. Was the machine paid for? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Have you made a search of the Charles Gordon, In-
corporated, records to determine dates of shipment and in-
voicing, payments, and soon? A. Well, there isn’t enough
left of the Charles Gordon, Incorporated, records so that
any search could be made.

Q. What has become of it? A. Well, they were de-
stroyed when the Production Machine Tool Company was
organized to carry on the production and sale of the cam
lathe.

(2285) Q. Have you any independent recollection of
about how long following the invoicing of the International
Harvester Company machine that it was paid for? A. It
was my understanding and belief that that machine was
paid for about 60 days after it was invoiced. That was my
recollection of it.

Q. Have you been able to verify it in any way? A. I
have.

Q. And, how was that? A. I personally went to the
International Harvester Company and—

Q. (Interposing): When did you go to the Interna-
tional Harvester Company? <A. I went to their general
offices on February 24.

Q. This year? A. 1939, yes, sir, and I got in touch
with Mr. N. Y. Leslie who, I was informed, was in charge
of the disbursement division of the accounting department.
And, I inquired from him if he could advise me as to when
that invoice was paid, and after he had, or his assistants—
whoever it was—had made a search, they advised him, and
he advised me, that the invoice was approved for payment
on April 16th, 1920, and that the payment would actually
be made by check within 48 hours after the invoice had
been approved by his department. That was as near as he
could advise me, and that is really all I know about it.

Q. Did you have any papers with you that you gave or
showed Mr. Leslie at the time you made inquiry about it?
A. Yes, sir.

1188 Charles Gordon, Re-Direct Examination

(2286) Q. What did you have with you? These ree-
ords (indicating)? A. I had some photostats, and these
are the photostats here, Exhibits 308, 309, 306 and No. 2
sheet of 306.

Q. And, did Mr. Leslie make his search of the records
based upon the information contained in these exhibits?
A. Yes, sir. I gave him these photostats and asked him if
he could find out when that payment was made, and he ad-
vised me a payment was made in the amount of $5300, au-
thorized by his department on April 16th, 1920.

Q. Did you make any notation of your talk with Mr.
Leslie? A. Yes, sir.

Q. I wish you would check and make sure whether
this April date you have given is correct or not? A. (Ex-
amining document): My note calls for the payment having
been authorized April 21, 1920.

Q. Then, in your testimony here where you have said
April 16, you meant April 21? A. April 21. I don’t know
where I got that April 16. April 21.

Q. Do these exhibits that you showed Mr. Leslie any-
where show the amount of the invoice as $5300? A. Yes,
sir. The invoice dated here 2/16/20, that is where I got the
**16’’; 2/16/20, invoice $5300.

Q. That was Charles Gordon, Incorporated, invoice?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, it was that invoice that Mr. Leslie informed
you had been approved for payment April 21, 1920? A.
April 21, 1920.

Q. Did the machine carry a guarantee with it? A.
Yes, sir. It was sold with a guarantee of a certain produc-
tion, (2287) and to be of first-class material and workman-
ship, and so on.

Q. And, if the machine had been faulty or inopera-
tive—

Mr. Farley (Interposing): It sounds like it is
going to be rather leading.

Q. (Continuing): —would the International Har-
vester Company have been under any obligation to pay for
it?

Mr. Farley: I object to that as leading, your
Honor please.

Charles Gordon, Re-Direct Examination

A. No, sir.
The Master: I will overrule the objection.

A. Mr. Leslie advised me if the machine had not been
approved by the superintendent of the plant where it was
located, he never would have authorized payment, or his
department never would have authorized payment. I be-
lieve that is the expression he used, and he said that was a
rule of their department. They had to get the approval of
the superintendent of the plant where the machine was in
operation before they would authorize payment.

Mr. Farley: It seems to me we are going rather
afield here, if the Court please. Of course, that is ob-
viously hearsay. I don’t think it is important; I will
let it ride.

The Master: I think it is hearsay, but the same
thing was testified to by the witnesses at the Interna-
tional Harvester themselves.

Q. (By Mr. Michael, continuing): What was the prac-
tice of Charles Gordon, Incorporated, with reference to in-
voicing a machine of this kind? A. Well, as soon as the
machine was shipped, usually the day the (2288) machine
was completed ready for shipment, the bookkeeper would
he notified, and he would invoice it, and the machines were
usually shipped at that time.

Q. Well, would the invoice in any case have been
rendered before the machine was shipped? A. No, sir.

Q. Mr. Gordon, outline briefly the commercial record
of manufacture, sale and use of the Gordon machines.

% % * ae *

A. I checked up recently my memory, and any infor-
mation I could (2289) gather as to the number of machines
that we huilt—-

Mr. Farley (Interposing): If your Honor please,
may I ask that you ask the witness, or instruct the wit-
ness, to limit his testimony to cam shaft machines.
The Gordon Company, by his testimony in the case
before Judge Tuttle, and the other case, sold, as I
understand it, many more crank cheek turning ma-
chines than cam turning machines. I don’t think the
record should be burdened with crank cheek machines.

Le —_—

1190 Charles Gordon, Re-Direct Examination

The Witness: That isn’t true. We sold many
more crank shaft machines than crank cheek ma-
chines.

The Master: Whatever it is, I think you should
be limited to the crank shaft machines. We aren’t in-
terested in any others.

The Witness: I believe a total of 27 crank shaft
machines—

Q. (By Mr. Michael, interposing): Well, have you a
memo you have prepared from actual records to show the
number of machines you have sold of the Gordon cam
turning lathe? A. I have a list here.

Q. Isn’t it true that that list was made from actual
records? A. Yes, they were made—the entire list was
made from actual records.

Mr. Farley: Was the list prepared by you from
those records?

A. This list was; yes.

Mr. Farley: All right.
The Witness: Yes.

Q. (By Mr. Michael, continuing): Tell what it shows.
A. It shows on the list of cam machines that two were
sold to (2290) Nash Motors; one to the Muskegon Motor
Specialty Company; two to the Maxwell Motors; one to the
International Harvester Company; two to the Peerless Mo-
tor Car Company; seven to the Studebaker Corporation;
one to the Packard Motor Car Company; two to the Cadil-
lace Motor Company; one to Peter Hartley; one to the Am-
stead Engineering Company; two to the Reo Motor Car
Company; two to the Jackson Motor Shaft Company; one
to the Cleveland Cam Shaft Company; and, two to the
Willys Corporation; making a total of twenty-seven cam
machines.

Mr. Farley: How many to Reo?
A. Two.
Mr. Farley: And, one to Cleveland?

A. One to Cleveland Cam Shaft Company.
Mr. Farley: And, Willys?

Oe

Sp NEN Pe rete

oP Rat BRAK Ke RR

tees

a 7

POR Pe Tew

a new Lat ER A aa Se

Charles Gordon, Re-Direct Examination 1191

A. Two.
Mr. Farley: What was the third one, please?

A. Maxwell Motors.
Mr. Farley: Two or one?

A. Two.

The Master: Do you know how many of those
machines are being operated today?

A. I do not. I haven’t been in touch with the ma-
chines for quite a number of years.

The Master: Are you familiar with the shape of
the cams that were turned on these machines that were
sold?

A. Ina general way. I haven’t any drawings of them,
and I have no recollection, definite recollection, of the
shapes of the different concerns.

(2291) The Master: You had to know at the time
in order to design the master cam properly, did you
not?

A. Well, some of them did in our organization. I
wasn’t doing all of the work. I had this Mr. Litchfield
that I spoke about, he was the draftsman, and my son
also; he did some of the work. And, I was engaged in other
lines of business as well as that.

The Master: Do you know whether any of the
cams that were to be turned on these machines were
sharp-nosed cams similar to the shape to that on the
Ford cam shaft, or were they the blunt-nose type, such
as the Nash cam shaft we have in evidence?

A. The only one I can definitely say was similar to
the Ford was the Jackson Motor Shaft Company where
they turned a Ford tractor shaft. I wouldn’t be able to
tell you of any others. But, that I happen to know because
I went over and saw it in operation, and that was where I
met Mr. Melling in connection with his machine. That is
what makes me remember so distinctly as to having been
over there. There were other things that also came up,
that I protested to the Jackson Motor Shaft as to the de-
partment in which these machines were operating.

1192 Charles Gordon, Re-Direct Examination

Q. (By Mr. Michael, continuing): How many ma-
chines did you sell to the Jackson Motor Shaft Company?
A. Two machines.

Q. And, do you remember what the first machine sold
to them was set up to turn? A. The Ford tractor shaft.

Q. The F shaft involved in this lawsuit? (2292) A.
The F shaft, yes. As I remember, it was the same shape as
it is today.

Q. And, did you on your visits over there see the
machine? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Your machine? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Working on those visits? A. I did; yes, sir.

Q. Was it in regular production? A. It was operat-
ing and turning shafts. I presume it was in regular produc-
tion.

Q. Did you see the shafts being turned on it? A. |
did.

Q. Were they usable shafts? A. Yes, sir. I under-
stood they were using them. They didn’t tell me they
were not using them.

Q. Do you know how long they used the machine on
the Fordson tractor shaft? A. No, I do not know how
long.

Q. Did they buy a second machine? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Of yours? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did they use that on? A. The Lycoming
Motor Company shaft.

Q. Do you remember the shape of the cams? A. No,
I do not. I don’t think—as I remember, it was a 12 cam
shaft.

The Master: About how many different days were
you in (2293) the Jackson Motor Shaft Company
watching the operation of your machine?

A. I think I was only there the one day.

The Master: Were there any statements made by
those in charge of the operation of the machine at the
plant with regard to its efficiency in cutting the Ford
cams?

A. The complaint that was made to me when I went
over there was that the rollers on the rocker arm, and the
rollers at the lower end of the arm that operated against

Mery * Ey A :
—— ee ~

— at at

Charles Gordon, Re-Direct Examination 1193

the form cam stuck on the pins, the supporting pins, and 1
protested quite strongly because they had the machine in
the department where it was, that department being thie
rough-grinding, cam rough-grinding department, and the
emery was just covered all over every machine, and we had
not designed the machine with protection against any such
condition as that. That was never supposed to be operated
alongside of grinding machines. Therefore, there was no
provision made for protecting them against this emery
that was laying around there. MKvery machine in the de-
partment was pretty well smeared with emery.
The Master: Did they move the machine from
that department when you brought that to their atten-
tion?

A. From that department?
The Master: Yes,

A. Not that I know of.

The Master: How long after you were there did
they purchase the second machine for the Lycoming
cam shafts?

A. I think the second machine was purchased at the
same time as the first one. My recollection was that both
those machines, (2294) the order covered those two ma-
chines,

Q. (By Mr. Michael, continuing): Were they delivered
at the same time? <A. I would say they wouldn’t be de-
livered at the same time, because they were for two dif-
ferent shafts, and we certainly would ship the first one that
we had ready for shipment.

The Master: Did you see this Lycoming machine
there when you were there?
A. I haven’t any real recollection of whether it was
in at that time or not.

The Master: Do you recall whether there were
any complaints about that machine?

A. No, sir, I never heard of a complaint about that
machine.

Q. (By Mr. Michael, continuing): Did you examine
your machine when you were there to see what effect, if

a |

1194 Charles Gordon, Re-Direct Examination

any, this emery dust was having on the machine? A. Yes,
sir, I stated to the customer very positively that it was in-
jurious to the machine, and that it was due to that emery
that some of the parts were not performing the way that
they should.

Q. Just how would this emery dust have a detrimental
effect on any parts of the machine? A. Any dust abrasive
of that kind would get into any of the bearings, either
rotating bearings, or sliding, or anything there. It wax
almost an impossibility for the dust not to get into the
bearings and the slides in that condition.

Q. Were all of the machines that you have listed here
for us as being sold by your company paid for? (2295) A.
Yes, sir. No—wait a minute. Yes, sir, every one of thoxe
27 machines were paid for in full.

Q. Did you have any complaints from any of the pur-
chasers or users of those machines? A. We had com-
plaints from the Nash Motors Company on the first ma-
chine.

Q. What did you do about that? A. We replaced that
with a brand-new machine. We recognized that machine
was the experimental machine.

Q. The first one? A. The first one, and we replaced
the entire machine.

Q. Did you have any complaints from them after that?
A. We had men down there two or three times after that.
After they had run the machine for a year, a season, they
asked us to have a man go down there and check it over,
and we made some—renewed some parts for them; but,
later on they invited us to make a proposition for a third
machine, and we had to compete with the Melling people
on price, and we didn’t get the order.

Q. I think you have listed there a total of what? 27
machines? A. 27 machines.

Q. Out of that 27, as I understood your testimony, you
had complaints only from Nash as to the first experimental
machine, and this further complaint that you just men-
tioned about Jackson Motor Shaft Company, is that right?
A. That is correct.

Q. There were no others? A. I don’t recollect any
other complaints.

The Master: Didn’t you previously state you had
some (2296) difficulty with Reo with your machine?

é
ba otsti Ni

Charles Gordon, Re-Direct Examination 1195

A. Yes. But, that was all—they complained the ma-
chine would not cut off the amount of stock that was left on
the stock, but that was so unreasonable that they practi-
cally voluntarily bought a second machine to take two cuts
off that material instead of one. That was as much as 5/16
of an inch to remove, and, of course, the machine wouldn’t
do that. It was not built for that.

Q. (By Mr. Michael, continuing): You mean the
forging was 5/16 of an inch oversize? A. Yes, we had
that much to remove, and that was more than the cutters,
or anything else, could do. That wasn’t a complaint of
the machine. With a reasonable amount of stock to re-
move, it would do it. Half of that would have been away
beyond, for instance, what the Ford Company leave on
their shafts.

Q. Did any of the users of your machines purchase
second machines substantial periods of time after they
bought the first one? A. Yes, sir. The Studebaker Cor-
poration bought one machine, and they followed along with
orders over a period of, I think—I don’t know—it seems
as though as I was always selling them the machines,
either the cam machines, or crank machines, and that ran
along over a period, I would say, over two or three years.
They bought a total of 7 cam machines.

Q. And, did any of the other companies order second
machines after they had the first machine? A. Yes, sir.
The Reo Company ordered a second machine. I think that
must have been a year after they ordered the first one. It
might have been more.

Q. That was for taking the second cut, was it? (2297)
A. No, sir. That was a different type of shaft. That is a
different form; it was for a different shaft. Just what the
detail of the difference was, I don’t remember, but we
fitted that machine up to turn the cams on a different shaft
than what the first one was.

Q. Did they ever buy a second machine just to take a
second cut? A. No, sir.

Q. What did they do about that? A. You are speak-
ing about the Peerless now?

Q. No, Reo. You mentioned Reo buying a second ma-
chine after they bought the first. A. I was mistaken.

Q. Did Reo buy a second machine? A. Reo bought a
second machine.

1196 Charles Gordon, Re-Direct Examination

Q. Did they buy it to take a second cut? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What other companies bought second machines?
A. The Peerless.

Q. Some time after they had the first? A. Yes, T
would say it was at least a year, and possibly further. It
was a new type of motor that they brought out, and re-
quired another machine, and they placed the order with
us. We furnished it, and it was paid for.

Q. And, Studebaker did the same thing? A. Yes,
sir.

Q. And, also, the Nash Company? A. The Nas)
Company. They bought for the Kenosha first, and the sec-
ond one they bought for the Milwaukee plant.

Q. And, any other companies? (2298) A. No. The
others that bought more than one machine placed the order
for both of them at the one time.

Q. Do you know of your own personal knowledge
whether or not all of these 27 machines went into actual
production? A. No, I am quite sure that some of them
didn’t.

Q. Well, which ones didn’t? A. The Willys Corpo-
ration, I think that was the name of the company, at
Elizabeth, New Jersey, they never got operating. Their
plant was—well, I don’t know how—I think they went
into the hands of the receiver before they even got oper-
ating.

The Master: Is that W-i-1-1-i-s?

A. ‘“ y-s.”
The Master: ‘‘y-s.’’

Q. (By Mr. Michael, continuing): How about the
other companies? A. The Cleveland Cam Shaft Machine,
I never knew whether that got into production or not. I
think it is very doubtful, because I never heard of them
producing cam shafts to any extent. They never amounted
to anything in the commercial field of making cam shafts.

Q. Well, you know about all the rest? <A. Well,
I didn’t see them in actual production, because I didn’t go
to their plants at all, but—

Q. (Interposing): You didn’t go to any of these
plants? A. Yes. I was talking about the rest of them on
this list, other than the ones I just mentioned. The Am-

Charles Gordon, Re-Direct Examination 1197

stead Engineering, I never went to their plant. I never
went to the Teeter Hartley plant. I did go to the Cadillac
plant, the Packard plant, the Studebaker and the Peerless,
and the Nash Motors, and the Reo, the Jackson; those are
the plants I individually (2299) or personally visited.

Q. After your machines had been bought and installed
in the plants? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And— A. (Interrupting): They were in opera-
tion.

Q. Were the machines in actual production? A. Yes,
sir.

Q. And, you saw them and observed them in actual
production in those plants? A. I did, yes, sir.

Q. Then, did the machines that you observed during
these trips to these various plants perform in a satisfactory
manner? <A. Yes.

Mr. Farley: Well, that is leading, if your Honor
please.

The Master: I don’t think it is leading. It is a
direct issue. It is in question here. I will overrule
the objection.

Q. (By Mr. Michael, continuing): What was your an-
swer? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, can you give from your own knowledge the
commercial history of these various machines; generally,
the extent of the production turned out on them, just very
roughly? A. Well, I don’t know how many years they
were in the Nash Company, in both the Kenosha and Mil-
waukee plants, but for a number of years they took care
of their entire production of shafts required in those two
plants. The Peerless Company, their entire production
was taken care of by first one machine, and then when
they required a different shaft, the entire (2300) produc-
tion was taken care of by the second machine.

The Studebaker Company, I was very familiar with
them, because I was in touch with them all the time sell-
ing other equipment, and they had seven machines, and
they turned all of their production with those seven ma-
chines, and that was a very large production those days.

Cadillac Motor Company, they turned all of their pro-
duction.

AN A NE EO —

1198 Charles Gordon, Re-Cross Examination

The others I am not so familiar with as to how much
production they had, or whether they did all of their pro-
duction on those machines. They might have had a dif-
ferent type of shaft than what the machine was equipped
for, and they might have formed some of the cams on the
shafts by some other means. If their production was small,
they possibly would, instead of buying a new big produc-
tion machine.

Mr. Farley: I move that be stricken, your Honor
please, it is purely speculative. :

The Master: Well, the witness is simply stating
the limits of his knowledge with respect to that pro-
duction there. I will let it stand.

Q. (By Mr. Michael, continuing): Aside, Mr. Gordon,
from whether or not these machines in these various plants
turned all or part of the production of the plants, what,
roughly, would you estimate was the volume of the pro-
duction on all your machines during all the period they
operated? A. Well, IT wouldn’t attempt to estimate on
number, other than to say there were millions of cams
turned by our machines; many millions.

Q. In regular commercial production? (2301) A. In
regular commercial production.

Q. What was the approximate price of all of your
cam lathes? A. Anywheres from 4,000 to 5500 dollars,
dependent on the equipment that was—the special equip-
ment furnished with the machines, and the number of
cams on the shafts to be turned.

(2378) Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Farley.

Q. Mr. Gordon, I believe you testified that the machine
of yours which was sent to the International Harvester
Company was guaranteed to be of first-class workmanship
and material? <A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that machine, I assume, was of first-class
workmanship and material? A. I believe it was.

Q. I also understand your testimony to be that you
know nothing about the difficulties they had with that
machine at the International Harvester? A. Outside of
what I believe I testified to in regard to an eccentric cam.

cis
rut Hey gin
a
RERRID SRL LA PEI ELL LL ED PTE ve: i a I Le SE ee Pe Visi’ y

Charles Gordon, Re-Cross Examination 1199

Q. You testified, I believe, when you were on the
stand before, that you had endeavored to find out about
the machine at International Harvester, but you could
never get any information concerning it? A. I inquired
about all the machines that we had out at all times, when-
ever I got an opportunity to get in touch with anybody,
where the machine was located.

Q. Well, you did so testify before the Master here,
that you had (2379) never been able to find out anything
about the machine at the International Harvester Com-
pany? A. I do not just remember it; probably I did, if
you have it there and would read that testimony I prob-
ably would remember it.

Q. At page 75 of the record I asked you the question:
‘‘Now, you had a similar experience with your machine in
the plant of the International Harvester Company, did
you not?’”? And your answer was: ‘‘I hadn’t anything
whatever to do with the machine that went to the Inter-
national Harvester Company, other than to know that
one was sent there, and of course my business was not re-
stricted to the cam machines, and I was very busy on other
things, and finally I started an inquiry as to what hap-
pened to those machines, or that one. I do not remember
there was more than one machine.’’ And at page 174 of
the record, you testified, in answer to my question appear-
ing at the bottom of page 173: ‘‘And didn’t you have the
same sort of difficulty with your machine at the Interna-
tional Harvester?’’ And you testified: ‘‘I never saw the
machine at the International Harvester, and could not get
any information from the International Harvester Com-
pany people. I probably could have.’’ I understand your
testimony to have been that your son was sent to the
International Harvester Company to help them out of their
difficulties? A. I do not believe I ever testified to that
effect. I might have, but I don’t remember it.

Q. Didn’t you say that on your direct examination?
A. I thought I testified he was sent there to demonstrate
the machine.

(2380) The Master: I think that is what he testi-
fied to.

Q. (By Mr. Farley): Well, can you state whether or
not you ever sent anyone, or anyone was ever sent by

Le 7

1200 Charles Gordon, Re-Cross Examination

the Gordon Form Lathe Company, to help the Interna-
tional Harvester Company with their difficulties with the
Gordon machine? A. I don’t know of anyone ever hay-
ing gone to the Harvester Company in reference to any
difficulties in connection with the machine after the ma-
chine was demonstrated and accepted by the International
Harvester Company.

Q. I think you testified that you had read the testi-
mony of the witnesses whom we examined in Chicago con-
cerning the International Harvester machines? <A. I did
read their testimony, yes, sir.

Q. And would it be your testimony that those men
were mistaken when they said that someone from your
company came and helped to try to make the machine
work and couldn’t do it? A. As far as I know, they were
mistaken. I don’t know of anything; they might not have
been mistaken, but I think they were.

Q. Well, didn’t you make it a practice of a concern
having difficulty with your machines to send someone in
and try to remedy the complaints? <A. Yes, sir, if we
were notified that they were in trouble with the machines,
we always sent a man down there to correct it wherever
it might be.

Q. Well, any difficulties the International Harvester
Company may have had with the machine would not have
been on account of any poor workmanship or material in
the machine; that would be true, wouldn’t it? (2381) A.
I think it would, unless an accident happened to the
machine, and of that, I don’t know.

Q. Now, on your direct examination you testified
about a number of machines that—Gordon machines—that
were sold to various concerns, and if I recall your testi-
mony, you said you had gone to the Peerless plant to see
the machines in operation there. You mentioned a num-
ber of plants, Peerless, I think you said you saw the ma-
chines operating, at Nash, Peerless, Studebaker, Packard,
Cadillac, and Reo; is that in accordance with your recol-
lection? A. That is correct, yes, sir.

Q. Who did you contact at the Peerless plant, do you
recall? A. No, I don’t.

Q. How about Studebaker, who did you contact there?
A. Well, I contacted one party at the South Bend plant,
I contacted quite frequently.

Charles Gordon, Re-Cross Examination 1201

Q. Who was that, please? A. I cannot remember
his name, but he was a man who testified in one of the
cases that we had here.

Q. Cheney? A. Cheney, George Cheney, that was
his name, yes.

Q. He is a personal friend of yours, isn’t he? A.
Well, he was a man who worked for me at one time, that
is, if I remember right, I hired him, but I never knew
him before the time I hired him, and I never contacted
him outside of the plant organization.

Q. Who did you contact at Packard, do you recall?
A. No, I don’t remember who I contacted in reference to
the cam (2382) machine. I contacted their engineers on
the cam shaft machine when they tried to change that
machine over from one type of crank shaft to another.

Q. How about Cadillac, do you remember who you
contacted there? A. No, I don’t think—the foreman of
the department, I don’t remember what his name was.

Q. How about Reo, do you remember who you con-
tacted there? A. The general superintendent, I don’t
just remember what his name was; if I heard it I think I
would remember it; Mr. Thiel.

Q. Mr. Teal—‘‘T-e-a-l1’’?, A. No, I don’t think it was,
I think it was ‘‘T-h-e-i-l,’’ or, ‘“T-h-i-e-1’’; I contacted him,
and a number of other people that were in the plant, fore-
men, sub-foremen, and so on.

Q. Just when was it you made your visit to these par-
ticular places? A. When was it?

Q. Yes. A. Well, I have no memory as to when it
was, it is a long time ago. I would generally call on these
people when I was in their vicinity, if there was any occa-
sion for doing that; I was travelling in Michigan, Illinois,
Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, selling other types of machinery.

Q. Do you remember what year it was, would it have
been 1924 or 1922 or 1920, or how long after you sold the
machine, do you recall? A. Well, I could tell you that in
connection with the different companies, probably, I
couldn’t tell you when it was, but I (2383) could tell you
how close it was to the time we put the machine in opera-
tion.

Q. Just when was it that you worked for Studebaker?
A. Well, I can’t tell you the date of that, but I can tell you

CEE

1202 Charles Gordon, Re-Cross Examination

some of the circumstances in connection with it; it was at
the time that Walter Flanders quit the organization and the
Studebaker took the organization over from the E. M. F.
Company; just what those dates are I don’t pretend to
remember.

Q. That was some time before you sold any machines
to Studebaker, wasn’t it? A. Oh, that was years before
we ever thought of the machine.

Q. That is what I thought. A. Yes.

Q. Now, you were asked by the Court if you knew how
many of the Gordon machines were in operation today, and
you said you didn’t know. As a matter of fact, you don’t
know of any place where any machine is in operation, do
you? A. I don’t, no, sir.

Q. When did you last see a Gordon machine in oper-
ation? A. Well, it is a number of years ago; I wouldn’t
attempt to say when that time was.

Q. What is the last Gordon machine you saw in oper-
ation; the one at the Ford plant? A. You are right, that
is correct, I haven’t seen one in operation since then.

Q. Now, you testified that you saw a Gordon machine
operating in regular production at the plant of the Jackson
Motor Shaft Company, did you not? (2384) A. I did, yes,
sir.

Q. Did you read the testimony of the witnesses Otto
Hl. Schultz, Bert Weisel and Frank Steinke, in the inter-
ference record before you testified here yesterday? A.
If I did, it is a long while ago that I read it, but I remember
those individuals testifying. I was there when they did
testify; that is, I don’t know of any action that was taken
that I did not attend.

Q. Do you recall that Mr. Schultz testified, as appears
on page 105 of this record, with respect to the Gordon ma-
chine: ‘‘We did everything we knew how to make those
machines work before we took the matter up with Mr.
Gordon, and he then sent in Mr. Goddard, and we turned
over the tool room and gave him a man and told him to stay
right with him and help him make those machines work,’’
and the question was asked: ‘‘Do I understand the first
machine never did work? A. The first machine worked
and run cam shafts, but the class of work obtained from
the machine that came off the machine was so bad we had

a te ee ee

Charles Gordon, Re-Cross Examination 1203

to take it off the machine and go back to the method of
rough grinding, for the cost on the job of scrap was so high
we could not afford to run the machine on the job.’’ Then
he was asked: ‘‘You are now speaking of the first machine?
A. Yes. Q. The one Mr. Gordon’s son tried to operate?
A. Mr. Gordon’s son gave up the job. I think he came
back with the second machine the second time, that is, Mr.
Gordon’s son, the second machine I think he came back
for a short time, he was sent, I think, some place else, and
I think there was another mechanic Mr. Gordon sent in the
meantime; I don’t remember his (2385) name. Q. Speak-
ing of the first machine that was on the Ford cam shaft?
A. Yes.’’ As a matter of fact, didn’t each and every one
of those three witnesses testify that they never succeeded
in getting any satisfactory shafts off the Gordon machine
when they attempted to operate it to cut Ford cam shafts?

Mr. Spohn: Now, if your Honor please, I appreci-
ate the fact this is cross examination, but it does not
seem that the question to the witness as to whether
those witnesses did not testify so and so is correct cross
examination. He may not agree with the witnesses.
He has the testimony right there.

The Master: Yes, it will speak for itself.

Q. (By Mr. Farley): Well, you did not review that
testimony before you testified here yesterday, that is my
understanding, that is true, isn’t it? A. No, sir, I did not.
I do not know how many years ago it was I saw that tes-
timony.

Q. And your testimony was that you were at the Jack-
son plant just for one day, and as I understood your testi-
mony you went there, did you not, because of the complaint
that was made about the machine; that was the purpose of
your being there? A. We were having machines made here
in Detroit, and I don’t remember whether it was on the
way to Detroit to see about more machines, or just what the
circumstances were that made me stop over there. I don’t
remember whether it was prior to the time that I had men
go there to take care of any trouble that they were ex-
periencing, or whether it was after I had men on the job.

Q. Well, you knew they were having trouble with the
machine? (2386) A. I knew they were not satisfied with
the machines, yes, sir.

1204 Charles Gordon, Re-Cross Examination

Q. And wasn’t that really the purpose of your visit
there? A. It possibly was; I am not sure whether that was
before or after we had men there.

Q. When you visited the Peerless and the Studebaker
and these other plants, isn’t it a fact that the reason for
your call was because of complaints made about the ma-
chines? A. It positively was not.

Q. Now, you testified that the Jackson Company was
the only one that you could recall where they were attempt-
ing to turn the sharp-nosed cams, as I understand your
testimony; that was your testimony, wasn’t it? A. I think
it was.

Q. Did you ever check on the proposition at Stude-
baker as to the performance of your machines there? A.
Yes, sir.

Q. The Studebaker had a very broad nose cam, did
they not? A. I don’t think it was exceptionally broad
nose.

Q. It was quite similar to the Nash cam, wasn’t it?
A. I don’t think so. My memory of it is, I haven’t seen
one for a long while, but—

Q. (Interposing): Did you ever see them operating
your machines at the Studebaker plant, one machine taking
a rough cut, one Gordon machine taking a rough cut, ond
another machine taking a finishing cut? A. I have.

Q. As a matter of fact, the output of those machines
was 14 shafts an hour, was it not, on the roughing cut, and
14 an hour on the (2387) finishing cut? A. No, sir, it cer-
tainly was not; that is, that was not the limit of the pro-
duction.

Q. I think I asked you once before as to all of these
machines which you testified were sold by the Gordon Com-
pany; how many machines was it, 23, wasn’t it? A. 27, if
I remember right.

Q. 27. Each and every one of those machines was sold
outright by you, were they not? A. They were.

Q. And in no case did you make it a practice to attempt

to get so much per shaft for each shaft turned on the ma-
chines?

Mr. Spohn: If your Honor please, I do not think
that question is relevant and material to this issue here.

Charles Gordon, Re-Cross Examination 1205

Mr. Farley: I think it is decidedly material.
The Master:

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385610_0072%3A03. Public record. Not legal advice.