Transcript of Record — Duplate Corp. v. Triplex Safety Glass Co.
Supreme Court brief1936
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
o~? —— —_ re
Vol. [ Tees
~ TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD |
©
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1935 _
ii
No. 767.
DUPLATE CORPORATION. AND. PITTSBURGH
PLATE GLASS COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
vs.
TRIPLEX SAPETY GLASS COMPANY OF NORTH
AMERICA
No. 768
DEPLATE CORPORATION AND) PITTSBURGH
PLATE GLASS” COMPANY, PETITIONERS.
vs,
TRIPLEX SAFETY GLASS COMPANY OF NORTH
; AMERICA
ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE HIRD CIRCUIT
yo
-
PETITION FOR CERTIORARE FILED FEBRUARY 21, 1956.
CERTIORARI GRANTED MARCH 30, 1936.
1?
Seis
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1935
\
No. 767
DUPLATE CORPORATION AND PITTSBURGH
PLATE GLASS COMPANY,. PETITIONERS,
vs.
TRIPLEX SAFETY GLASS -COMPANY OF NORTH
AMERICA
No. 768
DUPLATE CORPORATION AND PITTSBURGH ~*
PLATE GLASS COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
vs.
TRIPLEX SAFETY GLASS COMPANY OF NORTH ©
AMERICA
$N WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT -
OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
VOL. I.
INDEX.
Original Print 4
Record from D. C. U. S. Western Pennsylvania.......... ran 1 a
Se MIIOOD . du can cb gacbedsacuaciedencesivanabaewens 1 “4
Bill of complaint........ On'606600 00604660606 usbedene 10 7
EOGGORGRMES GRUWOE oc cvcccccccccscecccesccvedes ore 18 13.
Stipulation as to change of name of defendant......... 22 15
Jupp & DETWEILER (INc.), Printers, WasuHinxetox, D. C.. Aprit 3, 1936.
—7635-C
whe Tir han nL MRC Signa HME Gn
«e\a0%
Piaehoitnr Deitel ie Bite cll ih ase
INDEX
il
e o. 4 Original
Record from D. C. U. S:, Western Pennsylvania—Continued.
'' Order-changing name -.............-..0000e+ teens reese 22
Order as to supplemental bill of complaint...........-. 23
_ Supplemental bill of complaint ....................4.- 24
‘Answer ‘of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company............ 3
Imterfocwtery GOcree 2... cc cscs caccccsccccess fcbecneean 37
Interlocutory decree upon supplemental bill and answer 40
‘Release of bond ............. pasinsicesdhinens eeauan 3
Order Discharging Surety on bond..............000000- - 43
Accounting proceedings before the master............. 44.
PY ETTTTTOTTLITELILIEL LETT getees 44
Order for defendant to appear and file statement of ;
GORRRIE, GOR. caccacdnacansstkisarssacraas errr 45
Stipulation as to checking of account, ete....... 4 47°
Notice of accounting proceedings.................. 48
Objections to defendant's account..... ce eneeeceess 51
Testimony of C. L. McHenry .........2...--52006: nD
UE CN Bc dd cc nkansancean ene |
Be iy ices doe cadaseencddnaka 9S
Pee Me Medak sebddgadindeanwas 102
P CY By Si saccade cadanaans j 136
I ls ID ocd dou kcascdacuaen 144
Neilson Edwards ..2..............%. 159
PE SEES. nc dandccesnecksae 179
ED Cancéc sn ceeecscsewes 201
H. $. Wherrett....°...:.....,-..... 219
C: L. MeHenry (recalled)........... 220
Sydney. W. Caulfield ........... as
C. L. MeHenry (recalled)........... 247
George E. Sharpe (recalled)........ 249
(. L. MeHenry (recalled)........... 293
Philip F. Datz (recalled)........... 295
Pe Bb GT Séncdcccnescasnesses: 298
Sydney W. Caulfield (recalled)...... 305
Francis L. O. Wadsworth ........... 311
CHEN anwar enccncctddancccecosniogecancssiones $21
Testimony of Robert L. Clause ..... “dsnkaaweneeos 323
it ee CE bacuedbessaecansedceobewe 398
CEN ec ce cnddnccovansdecestaesicésabannssoce 465
Additional objections to defendants’ account....... 465°
Stipulation as to facts with respect to soda ash, —
pmG amd Mahe, G00. 2... ccscccccacasccanscsccces 472
ORS GE Ti, Bh MBs é dcéeadscdccadccancacss 474
J. H. Sherts (recalled) ...... cane 496
Order re filing of additional account .............. 527
Testimony of A. M. Wibel.........: enbaeanedasae 528
R. H: McCarroll ........ Cvapaaren 42
ly Is. GE on 6643 bb anGacedaada¥eas 563
x SE SR cas nnenneedesed fait ee
Be SED catackadasccecabeus 196
A. C. Downey ...... PEPE PEO Ey: ~ “15
J. E. MeLarty
16
"16
17
24
26
28
11
12%
139
156
171
171
172
193
195
229
231
233
239 ~
243
252
253
313
367
367
372
.
391
415
416
427
444
453
470
485
INDEX ill
Record from D. C. U. 8., Western” Pennsylvania—Continued.
Accounting proceedings before the master—Continued.
7 Original Print
. Statement of cost of thin polished glass for years
1928, 1929 and 1930......... pedeadedscaneasesens 641 505
Additional exceptions to defendants’ statement of .
EE. Seb vac aeaws deae ne oe nkeesweecsascidere 641 506
Testimony of C. L. McHenry (recalled)........... 644 508
Motion for order requiring plaintiff to produce cer- ;
GREE CD UN GND nn cccccnesecareascssvsas 671 529
Testimony of Philip F. Datz (recalled).....:...... 677-534
C. L. McHenry (recalled),.......... ~ 706 557
Philip F. Datz (recalled) ........... 728 575
- _ C. L. McHenry (recalled)........... 729 576
; Robert L. Clause (recalled)......... 733 579
Order denying motion to examine books and rec-
ords of plaintiff......... <easeeaueawiweceuweas ie 613
Testimony of C. L. McHenry recalled ) Oe EP ene 776 614
a P. F. Datz (reealled) ..2....ccee0.. 785 620 .
Hi. B. Higgins (recalled) ............ . 788 622
/ E. E. Tinstman: (recalled).......... 810 640
. H. B. Higgins (recalled) ....... a 643
James C.*Bradley ........ ae, 825 i583
. .C. L. McHenry (recalled)........... $36 661
H. S. Wherrett (recalled)........... 362 82
H. B. Higgins (recalled) 2........... $71 689
C. L. McHenry (recalled) ........ +. 883 699
Philip F. Datz. (recalled) ........... 906 | 718
C. L. McHenry (recalled) .......... 910 720
Philip F. Datz (recalled) ........... 940 744
Richard B. Tucker ................ 944 TAT
Renewal of motion for order requiring plaintiff to pro-
duce certain books and records ................005- 947 750
Testimony of C. L. McHenry (recalled) ........... 948 751
Sidney W. Caulfield (recalled) ...... 949 752
Statement of Defendant in Response to Master’s Order. 990 784
Table, Sheet 1 .......... EPPO EET ee rere 993 785
NE SE vc kccissedaaeens RoUeadakeaa arena 995 786
MEE otic baad Gassecdesdos donvid RE AR 996 787
Ld cnvkbesdeesduodsaseaene Pet nd NS 997 788
PPL I Tr hee ee 998 789
Report of Master Sur Account........... Ke ped at OM 999 791
Decrees Under Which Master Is Operating........ - 999 791
The Nature of the Infringement ........:..... pean’ ae 793
1. The Defendants’ Profits:
A. Original Statement of Account.......... (1003. 794
ee Ee hance dd nvidanaexndes 1006 7
C. Cost Y-in. -Plate Glass......5........4.. 1006 797.
Allowance Patented Pravess............ 1010 - 799
Federal Income Tax..... Bd ate ac aig Smite 1011 = =©800
Ne oo ida wack ccna’ “tise 12088 801
tf"
nt} mie Ty thie sbbeh ieee" y . _—— 4 ie oe >. Ms
Sil tinal atta LAR IRA DBs ae bc Na SMES E EIN In tf oN Se
°
Ls, eee appa ibd para eE SSO i
seve
rs:
a aT
iv
INDEX.
Record from D.C. U. 8. Western Pennsylvania—Continued.
Repott of Master Sur Account—Continued.
1. The Defendant's I’rotits—Continued »* Original
. I). Contested Items of Cost and Expense... 101%
4 Selling Commissions.................... 1014
Factory Operating Loxses.............. 1015
Cutting Department................ 1015
. Hramepestatien «..ccccccccccccses . 106
Assembling Department............ 1016
Pressing Department............... wiz
Edging Department................ 1019
POU Bc cc cccccccccedcccess 1019
Law of Factory Operating Losses... 1019
Defective Product Returned............ 1021
Return After Accounting Ieriod........ 1022
Experimental EDs so ccecerscoseese 1023
Extraordinary PGND: cdecccsccccesee 1024
Average Costs and Specific Selling Prices 1025
Additional Claim as to I’yralin Losses. . 1020
Il. The Plaintiff: Damages: .
BSD UME c ccc ecccccceccecscéooes lie
DU ER uicschtevetesceééeteceseséeseos 1081
PE GIN, Seececcdccocccsecconceseses lez
Reasomable Royalty... .. 0.0... c cc snccccsces 1084
PG Enh 30005 0b c00edesdécceesectbace 1044
SD, GAs a occccceccoupcecocseoascs 147
Master's Readings, Exhibits.................... 1050
BUD Ge TE Gia scccpcccccccceccccsoses 1051
Appendix A—Opinion of Special Master in Re Piain-
tiffs Requests for Order Directing
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company to
Account for Profits on Plate Glax« :
Sold to The Duplate Corporation... 1052
Appendix K—Account, Per Findings.............. 1065
Appendix C—Table, Losses Reduced I’rices........ 1068.
Appendix D—Master's Readings...... ea eneeeee . 1060
Plaintiff's Exceptions to Master's Final Report........ 1074
Defendants’ Exceptions to Master's Report........ rn
Notice and Motions for Judgment by I’faintiff.......... 1003
Motion to dismiss Maintiff’s exceptions............... 104
Opinion on Defendants’ Application for a Review of an
Incidental Ruling of the Special Master in the Ac-
counting Proceeding, Schoonmaker, J.............. 1
‘Order denying application for review of incidental rul-
. Se Oe SE nbSennccdccccectcciccdecescoscsoecs 10S
. Opinion on Defendants’ “Petition With Respect to I'ro-
duction and Examination of Certain Books and
Records of the Plaintiff, Schoonmaker, J........... lou
‘ Order denying petition for order directing plaintiff to
produce certain books and records................. 1101
Opinion, Schoonmaker, J.. on exceptions and motions
to assess interest and costs. .............66600000s 1102
ee en ee ne 7 - oe
EeeeER REEL
ae — ae
\
INDEX Vv
Kecord from D. CU. S., Western Pennsylvania—Continued.
Original Print
Supplemenial opinion on Master's report. Schoon-
ED Dds apdescnccsdséndodecococensecnsasocdsehe 1110 S878
EE Ss naccdsdweddsebotasabadésebdssacosscsoae 1111 879
Order Regarding Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
ORES SRILA CE 1130 R80
Defefidants’ Petition for Appeal...................... 1114 881
ey AD SINE cd ccuccccccddsocscccecoecedbe » 1114 881
Defendants’ Assignments of Error ...... iacesceaseeda 1115 SSI
Plaintiffs Notice of Appeal................. Becsceves 1130 SO4
’ Plaintiff's Petition for Appeal............... nae 1131 5
GuGer AMbot ing Aged ccs ccccccccccciccccccccccceh 1132 896
Plaintiff's Assignments of Error...................... 1138 806
Stipulation Re Record........... SAeeuesbneeseerseeee 1144 906
ee Fae We Cine Mehidcocccdacdedibsotessddceds 1149 910
Proceedings in U. §. G. C. A. Third Cireuit ..... o664e06be0n 1151 910
Minute entry of argument and submission................. 1151 910
Opinion, Thompson, J............ seaebesacaée eT ee Pee 1152 o11
COwGere aGitemlng Gecree. oo. c cc ccc ccccccccccccccccccccscece 1167 923
. Clerk's certificate [omitted in printing}.................... 1160S 4
Miaintiff’s exhibits before Master..................2..... 1170 924
Media Se Bes. 4 00-6 Gays cccccccccdecctccccccsceses 1170 924,925
No. 5—Order of Avg. 30, ena ic ita Plate Glass
II AET IE, Is iia IL 71‘ g26 -
Revital re a: Mina baceabessdbenkenncseccocceveasdas 1172 927
No. 6—Copy of Invoice—Pittsburgh Plate Glass to Du-
See. Ge creconccnneeeseceectodas cee 1175 928
6A—Copy of Invoice—Pittsburgh Plate Glass to .
Fea GAR GRBs coos cc cicccccccsccess 1174 28
Recitats re Nos. 7 to 7-d inc................. e0ee6 sates 1175 920
No. Abstracts of stock and departmental accounts—
Pittsburgh Safety (Glass Co............... 1176 0
No. 9—Plaintiff's Report. ....... 2.2... ...0ccccccceccee 1179 931
9-A—Summarization of Report.................. 1187 940
10—Two Schedules Identified by Witness Sharpe.. 1207 oH)
11—Letter of December 8, 1928, Gorrell to Edwards 1200 N62
12—Letter December 11, 1928, Edwards to Gorrell. 1212 iS
13—Reprint of Newspaper Article................ 1214 968
14—-Contract—Stutz Motor Car Company mained aaa a 67
Recitals re Nos. 15 to 18, ine....... cceebedoasenseaeaecs 1218 970, 971
No. 19—Memorandum and work sheets.......0........ 1219 972
Sees OP SUE Ub cdectconcsnbesatdcbenscvecassuanens 1223 973
No. 21—Lease—Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company ont du-
Pont Viscoloid Company.................. 1224 973
SR ETOR THRs occ cccccccccccccsccccocesces 1233 aso
SPPOEE MENU ocnccccbccccddccdencecsescc 1235 980
22-B—Delivery Tickets. ...°.....cccccsscccccccccss 1237 Age
23—Bill—Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company to Du-.
* plate Company, May, 1929........ Se 1230 oSO
24—Copy of License Agreement—tTriplex Safety
Glass Company and Johnston Glass Com- “~
Dy a ceccissucoiensscnieneseiedcuky ico 98)
2
VOL
vil INDEX
Record from D. C. U. S., Western Penusylvania—Continued.
Plaintiff's exhibits before Master—Continued.
Original
1252
Recitals re Nos. 25-A to 25-C, inc..............-. ae ee
No. 26-A—Original Invoice—duPont Viscoloid Company
to Triplex Safety Glass Company.........
~“6-B—Original Invoice—duPont Viscoloid Company —
to Triplex Safety Glass Company..... fee
21i-C—Original Invoice—duPont Viscoloid Company
to Triplex Safety Glass Company.........
. 26-D—Original Invoice—duPont Viscoloid Company
to Triplex Safety Glass Company.......:.
Meieeh 86 Tie, Bhi ce cccascescs Lseee Garren causa kanes me
No. 28—Tabulation of sales at reduced prices.........
Recitals re Nos. eG ME dcekcccesancneseeceens
No. 80—Tabulati#n—Polished Vlate Cutting Loss, Anal-
wis by Customers’ Orders................
31—Statement—Comparison of Details of Contested
Items Eliminated From Cost..............
Relies Oe Sk ee ot cc ee na awe cond RESP Ra WE Eee
Defendants’ exhibits before Biaster oc c.c< cs. ei sh sce
“4"°—Contract—Ford Motor Company and Triplex
Safety Reet. SIND eos sios caeec oi viaas.s 0s 35
“B’—Copy of Invoice—-Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company
to Duplate Corporation, October, 1929.........
Recitals re “C” to "Ee MEd esha sede aaa dae dhe ane
“M"—Copy of Letter, April 5, 1928, Iludson Motor
Car Company to Hudson Distributors.........
“N"—Copy of Poster Accompanying Letter (Defendants’
_ Exhibit “M”)
ee)
Mecttal £4) ~O" ..c4csi bivad COCA dE TR A2 4 beA RRA a een ee
“P"—Cullet—Sales to Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. by Du-
gg eS APE or ene Y eee
een Oe a RN bn kG she see steaudacedat ea RaEeeS
“R”’—Analysis of 144” polished plate glass used in pro-
ducing duplate........ kA a oe Ae od a eee
Gs 0 Oe i pare ae wiirea aa Ras ae eat
“U"—Polished plate cutting loss—Analysis by cus-
eg, RPE ge pat te ae ee EI a Ae
es Ges a i Rs ekadaenseatabadnbacuad
“AA”—Sheet in Connection With Exhibit .“Z,’ Exclud-
ing Items Termed “Not Operating Expenses”. .
“BB"-—Statement of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company's
Selling Cost Belonging tu Sales of Infringing
; SUE cndésedes mee eeenbasddneuhans caesar
& PC a a ke ee oa ea eee ce as
“DD"—Statement of Duplate Sales, and Sales of Plate
Glass From the [Pittsburgh Plate Glass Com-
pany to Duplate Corporation, at Creighton....
“EE’—sStatement Showing Profit on Sale of %-in:; Glass
From Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company to Du-
plate Corporation, Allowing Credit for Sale of
\%-in. Plate Glass to Customers, Had Duplate
ee: Ts va viccdnccacadasaseananes
1285 .
1284 1019.
1286.
1288
1289
1290
1291
129:
. 129:
te
~~
1294
1295 1031,
1297
989
991
1009.
1011
101f
1011
1018
1020
1021
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1032
1033
1034
1035
1056
1037
we ae
fa nthe a Tea NA A Paih ella Ses: PED E litt cei
INDEX
Record-from NR. C. U. S., Western Pennsylvania—Continued.
Defendants’ exhibits befure Master—Continued : Original
4 “FF”’—Profit on Sale of .%-in. Glass From Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Company, Creighton, to Duplate
Corporation ........ eee Oa Spr aaipe a taeuts at os ad atari ai 1302
“GG"—Statement Showing Gross Sales and Cost of
Sales cf Duplate for Period—Years 1928-1929,
First Five Months of 1930........ deeeeececes 1303
“HH’’—Profit on Certain of Duplate Sales, If Average
Cost Is Applied to Individual Sales........... 1304
- Supplemental Exhibit “II’—Statement of Items Ex-
cluded From Cost by Accounting as Claimed by
Triplex Company (Plaintiff’s Exhibits 9, 9-A and
| eee eer er Seay ee Seca em eae rcs Se eee ans 1305
SE EE ee Coa ee ee cs se has clemle ae te 1306
Clerk’s certificate {omitted in printing]................... “1308
Defendants’ original exhibit “O” before Master—Tabula-
tion of operating losses by Duplate Corporation........ 1308
COECER URGE COTENOTEES «os ooo one co hod a5 as as cece bed oe 1339
1038
1039
1040
1041
1045
10438
1045
1077
PAE SPREE PR MNES IME PIPE INN LIE MIE OEE TEIN GS MEE RAINY OG RMS UIT REP TI
WB iaitasterscnce ceca. Seite Rt
hi Roe : a FS ' — a
“
- .
.
id .
j .
Sl
e «
.
‘
‘
-
s
.
.
.
i .
; - .
+ ‘ : |
* .
«
. ar
.
[fol. 1] ;
IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
In Equity. No. 2295
TRIPLEX Sarety Giass Company or NortH AMERICA
v.
PirtspurGH Sarety Guiass Company, Name Changed to Dv-
PLATE CorpPorATION and PirrspurcH Puate Grass Com-
PANY
Docket ENTRIES
Dec. 31, 1928. Bill of Complaint filed.
Dee. 31, 1928. Subpoena issued.
Jan. 4, 1929. Subpoena returned served by handing: to
~ and leaving a true and attested copy
with H. B. Higgins, Secretary of Pitts-
burgh Safety Glass Co. at Pittsburgh,
Pa., on Jan. 3, 1929.
Jan. 9, 1929. Stipulation filed extending time for defend-
ant to file its answer to and including
March 4, 1929.
Mar. 4, 1929. Answer filed.
May 23, 1929. On motion of plaintiff, Interrogatories filed
by leave of.Court.
May 23, 1929. Copy of interrogatories’ mailed to Christy
' & Christy.
June 97, 1929. Defendant’s answers to Interrogatories
filed by plaintiff.
[fol. 2]
June 27, 1929. Copy of Answer mailed to Brown & Criteh-
low .
June 29, 1929. Motion for more particular statement of
the nature of plaintiff’s claim filed and
order entered directing plaintiff to an-
swer the foregoinf within ten days from
this date.
1—767-768
SE REQIE LRA AL EL GEGRO HID
~ - =
Pe . ‘ 7 :
Warts ee es ee Cee ee ar este ASL itn ab RS 97 Fakes omy Get eerie leita
Docket Entries—Continued
July 11, 1929. Plaintiff’s bill of particulars filed.
. / Sept. 3. 1929. Hearing before Schoonmaker, J.
v Sept. 16, 1929. Stipulation as to certain facts and exhibits
filed. °
Nov. 16, 1929. Opinion, filed and entered concluding that
said patent is valid and has been in-
fringed; the plaintiff is entitled to the
relief prayed for; let a decree be sub-
mitted accordingly.
Dec. 9, 1929. Decree filed and entered adjudging that
Letters Patent No. 1,182,739, are good
and valid, and the property of the ake-
tiff; that. the defendant has infringed on
said patent; that the defendant be en-
joined from further infringement; that
the plaintiff recover for its costs, dam-
ages etc; that the case be referred to
G. Dixon Shrum as Special Master for
an accounting. |
Dec. 9, 1929. Stipulation changing the name of the de-
fendant on record from Pittsburgh
Safety Glass Company to Duplate Cor-
poration filed by Order of Court.
Dec. 9, 1929. On petition of defendant, Order entered
allowing an appeal.
[fol. 3]
Dee. 9, 1929. Assignments of error attached.
Dee. 9, 1929. Order of Court filed and entered suspending ~
the injunction pending appeal, upon the
defendant filing a bond in the sum of
$50,000.00.
Dee. 9, 1929. Citation mailed to C. C. of Appeals.
Dec. 10, 1929. Appeal bond approved by the Court and
filed.
Jan. 9, 1930. Order of Court filed and entered extending
time for defendant to file transcript of
record in the U. S. Cireuit Court of Ap-
peals to Feb. 20, 1930.
July 17, 1930. Copy of Opinion of Sc. Appeals re-
ceived and filed.
p>
=
Jo
>
=
JR
Aug.
Aug.
‘ Docket Entr&s—Continued
18, 1930. Mandate received from Circuit Court of
peals affirming the decision of this Court
with costs; Triplex Safety Glass Co. to
recover against the said Duplate Corp.
the sum of. $20.00 for its costs expended
herein.
19, 1930. Injunction order filed and entered directing
- that injunction carried by the interlocu- °
tory decree of Dec. 9; 1929 be issued
forthwith.
19, 1930. Permanent Injunction issued.
28, 1930. Permanent Injunction returned service ac-
knowledged by attorney for defendant.
Jan. 24, 1931. On motion of plaintiff, rule granted on de-
[fol.4] .
Jan. 24,
Jan. 24,
Feb. 14,
Feb. 24,
Feb. 28,
Mar. .3,
Mar. 3,
Mar. 13,
May 13,
i ae P
Oct. 7,
Oct. 7,
1931.
1931.
1931.
1931.
1931.
1931.
1931.
1931.
1931.
1931.
1931.
1931.
fendant to show cause why it should not
be adjudged in contempt of Court.
Affidavit of Arthur W. Thomas filed.
Affidavit of Willard L. Morgan, with ex-
hibits, filed. .
Defendant’s motion to discharge rule to
show cause why it should not be adjudged
in Contempt filed.
‘Affidavits for defendant sur proceedings
for contempt filed.
Rebuttal Affidavit of Willard L. Morgan
filed.
Hearing on motion to discharge rule
granted Jan. 24, 1931, before Schoon-
maker, J.—Motion denied.
Hearing on rule for contempt—argued
CA.
Opinion filed and entered denying plain-
_tiff’s motion to adjudge defendant in
contempt; an order to be submitted.
Transcript of testimony filed.
Notice and motion for leave to file supple-
mental bill filed.
Supplemental bill of complaint filed by
leave of Court.
Subpeena issued.
f.
Be
3
5
3
bd
s.
:
s
fe
=
SNS CURSE EET ope
ORLA LLP P ERE ds hee
REAR IIT RR e ty
ee
Docket E\nrrres—Continued
- Oct. 8, 1931. Subpoena returned served on Marshall A.
Christy; attorney who accepted service
for both defendants at Pittsburgh, ra.
on October 8, 1931.
Oct. 21, 1931. Answer of Pittsburgh Plate Clans Co. filed
to Supplemental Bill of Complaint.
[fol. 5]
Dec. 5, 1931. Interlocutory decree upon supplement
bill and answer filed and _ enterec
adjudging, that Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Co. has jointly with Duplate Corp. in-
fringed Letters Patent No. 1,182,739;
that a perpetual injunction issue
against said Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.;
that the plaintiff recover from said de-
fendant its damages; that this matter be
referred to G. Dixon Shrum, Special
Master; that the defendant pay the costs.
Dee. 16, 1931. Order of Court filed and entered releasing
the surety on the bond filed Dee. 10, 1929.
Jan. 26, 1932. Pretipe for appearance of Smith, Buch-
anan, Scott & Gordon for defendants
filed. |
Apr. 20, 1932. Petition of defendant to sustain excep-
tions; certificate of Special: Master; and
renewal of defendants exceptions filed.
Apr. 23, 1932. Answer of plaintiff to petition of defendant
filed.
June. 10, 19382. Opinion sur defendant’s application for re-
view of an incidental ruling of Special
Master filed; order to be submitted.
June 22, 1932. Order of Court filed and entered denying
without prejudice the application of the
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. for a veview
of the incidental ruling of the Special
_“Master; they to file exceptions to the
[fol. 6] whole or any part of any final report of
| the master.
Oct. 21, 1932. Defendants petition with absent to produe-
tion and examination of certain books
and reegrds of plaintiff filed.
al
Oct. 21, 1932.
Oct. 31, 1932.
Jan. 12, 1934.
Jan. 18, 1934.
Jan. 31, 1934.
Feb. 1, 1934.
Mar. 27, 1934.
Apr. 3, 1934.
Apr. 3, 1934.
[ fol. 7]
Apr. 3, 1934.
May 1, 1934.
May 25, 1934.
June 28, 1934.
Docket Entrres—Continued
Opinion filed and entered denying defend-
ant’s petition; without prejudice, to the
right of defendant’s to raise the same
question by exception to the Master’s re-
port—an order may be submitted accord-
ingly. ;
Order of Court filed and entered denying
defendant’s motion, directing the plain-
tiff to produce its books and records,
without prejudice, to the right of de-
fendants to raise the same question by
exception to the Masters final report.
Report of Special Master sur account filed.
Proof of service of notice of return of Mas-
ters report to Clerks office, filed.
Defendant’s exceptions to Master’s report
filed.
Plaintiffs exceptions to masters report filed.
Notice to defendants that motion are to be
presented filed.
Motion -to dismiss plaintiffs exception to -
the report of the master filed.
Argued before Schoonmaker, J. C. A. Y.
Trial memo filed.
Opinion filed and entered over-ruling ex-
ceptions to Master’s report, and confirm-
‘ing same absolutely; assessing costs of
accounting against defendant-, allowing
interest on the award of damages from
the day infringement ceased; Decree to
be submitted. |
Plaintiff's bill of costs filed.
Supplemental opinion filed and entered sus-
taining defendants’ exception No. 11 to
the extent of the award of $2807.89 as
specific damages @e to reduced selling
price, in addition to award of a reason-
able royalty.
SE OT ION ENT REET NT OT NEN LENE OO TIN
aiuh Sh, aaa
‘
i
| ne Cresa
*
-
Docket Entries—Continued
2, 1934. Final decree filed and entered overruling
2, 1934. On moti
plaintiff’s exceptions to the Master’s re-
port, defendants*exceptions to the Mas-
ter’s report is confirmed absolntely;
plaintiff’s motion to assess interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the
date the infringement ceased is hereby
granted; plaintiff to recover from de-
defendants its costs in the amount of
$8332.25; plaintiff to have judgment in
the total amount of $523,912.52, with in-
— 6% per annum until paid.
of plaintiff order entered direct-
ing that opinion dated May 1, 1934, sup-
plemental opinion dated June 28, 1934
Special master’s Findings of fact & con- ©
clusions of law, as set forth in Findings
’ of fact numbered 1-26 and conclusions of
law numbered 1-18 dated Jan. 12, 1934
except Special Master’s Conclusion of
law 17, be adopted as Findings of Fact &
Conclusions of law in conformity with
“ Equity rule #70%. °
, 1934. On motion of plaintiff, order entered di-
recting matter to-be adopted as Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of law in above
case—defendant- except, exception noted
and Billed sealed.
6, 1934. On petition of Duplate Corporation and
6
July
!
Aug.
[fol. 8]
Aug. 27
Sept.
Sept. 6,
Sept. 6,
Sept. 6,
Sept. 17,
- Sept. 17,
Sept. 17,
Pittsburgh Glass Co..order entered al-
lowing appeal.
1934. Assignments of Error filed.
1934. Citation issued returnable Oct. 6, 1934.
1934. Stipulation filed and order entered waiving
the filing of appeal cost bond of each
party.
1934. On petition of Triplex Safety Glass Co.
order éntered ailowing appeal.
1934. Assignment of errors filed.
1934. Notice of appeal filed with acceptance of
service thereon.
Docket Entries—Continued
Sept. 18, 1934. Citation issued returnable Oct. 17,1934.
Sept. 29, 1934. Petition of defendants re general contents
of record on appeal filed with acceptance
of service thereon. ‘
[fol. 9]
Oct. 2, 1934. Plaintiff’s answer to defendant’s petition
; re contents of record on appeal filed.
Oct. 3, 1934. Stipulation re contents of record on appeal
and order approving same filed. ~ :
Oct. 3, 1934. Order (on defendants’ petition of Sept. 29,
1934) directing that master’s Exhibit 32
for identification shall not be included in
the appeal record; exception noted to the
. plaintiff.
—
[fol. 10] In Unrrep States District Court ror tue Wesr-
ERN District or PENNSYLVANIA
In Equity. No. 2295 —
TRIPLEX Sarety Guass Company or Nortu AMERICA,
V.
PirtspurcH Sarety Guass Company, Defendant.
Bit or Comptaint—Filed December 31, 1928
To the Honorable Judges of the District Court of the
United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania :
The plaintiff, Triplex Safety Glass Company of North
America, complaining of the defendant, alleges:
First. That the plaintiff, Triplex Safety Glass Company
of North America, is a corporation of the State of Dela-
ware and has its principal office in‘Clifton, in the State of
New Jersey; that the defendant, Pittsburgh Safety Glass
Company, is a corporation of the State of Delaware and
has its principal office.and regular and established place of
business in the City of Pittsburgh, in the State of Pennsyl-
EEL EIGEN et ILL OCI ATES
RD
" vania, within the Western Judicial District of Pennsylvania
at which place and within which district, as well as else-
where in the United States the acts hereinafter complained
[fol. 11] of as infringements have been and are. being done
by said defendant.
Second. That this is a suit in equity arising under the
Patent Laws of the United States, for infringement of
Letters Patent of the United States No. 1,182,739.
- Third. That on‘and prior to the fourteenth day of June,
1911, Edouard Benedictus, then a citizen of France, was
within the meaning of the Statutes of the United States
then in force, the first, sole, true and original inventor of
certain new improvements in manufacture of strengthened
glass, not known or used by others in this country and not
patented or described in any printed publication in this or
any foreign country before his invention or discovery
thereof, or more than two years prior to his application for
‘letters patent therefor, and mo application for any foreign
-patent having been filed more than twelve months priar to
the filing of the application for letters patent in this coun-
try, and which improvements had not been in public useor
on sale in the United States for more than two years prior
- to-his said application for letters patent therefor, and not
abandoned to the public.
Fourth. That on the fourteenth day of June, 1911, the
said Edouard Benedictus made and filed an application in
writing to the Commissioner of Patents for the grant of
letters patent upon the said invention or discovery of im-
provements in manufacture of strengthenefl glass, ‘said ap-
plication bearing No. 633,128; that on the ninth day of May,
1916, all the requirements of the Statutes of the United
States then in force having been complied with, Letters
Patent of the United States No. 1,182,739, fer improve-
ments in manufacture of strengthened glases, was duly
[fol.12] issued on the said application to said Edouard
Benedictus ; that said letters patent was issued in due form
of law in the name of the United States of America under
the seal of the United States Patent Office, signed by the
' Commissioner of Patents, duly recorded and delivered to
the said Edouard Benedictus, and was so issued after due
examination as to the novelty, patentability and utility of
the inventions therein described and payment_of the fees
-}
9
required by law; and that the said letters patent granted
to the said Edouard Benedictus, his heirs, legal representa-
tives or assigns, for the fuk term of seventeen years from
the date thereof, the full and exclusive right and liberty to
make, use and sell the inventions set forth, described and
claimed therein throughout the United States and terri-
tories thereof. ;
Fifth. That the plaintiff is the sole and exclusive owner
' of the entire right, title and interest in‘and to Letters Pat-
ent of the United States for manufacture of strengthened
glass, No. 1,182,739, dated May 9, 1916, and granted to
Edouard Benedictus, and is the exclusive owner of the
entire right, title and interest in and to all damages and
profits recoverable at law or in equity for any and every
infringement of said letters patent and in and to all claims
and demands for such damages and profits by virtue of
certain instruments in writing duly executed and recorded
in the United States Patent Office, as by the said instru-
ments in writing or by duly certified copies thereof, ready
in court to be produced by the plaintiff as your Honors :
shall direct, will more fully appear. 4
Sixth. That the said improvements in manufacture of
strengthened glass shown, described and claimed in said :
Letters Patent of the United States. No. 1,182,739, have - :
.been and are of great practical use and benefit to the plain- g
(fol. 13} tiff and to the public; that the plaintiff has in- /
vested and expended large sums of money and has been to f
great trouble and expense for tle purpose of introducing
the same into public use and making the same profitable to
it and useful to the public; that said improvements have
been favorably known throughout the United States; that
the publie has generally acknowledged and acquiesced in
the value and utility of said improvements and has gener- °
ally acknowledged and acquiesced in the rights secured to
the plaintiff by the said letters patent; and that*the plain-
tiff believes that it will-realize and-receive large gains and
profits from the said improvements if it shall reecive the ]
equitable relief prayed for in this bill of complaint.
YA PEAR TY entre
PE TOE A PIP T RT Ho Py,
Seventh. That the plaintiff has given notice to the pub-
lie that strengthened glass embodying the improvements
shown, described and claimed in said Letters Patent of
the United States, No. 1,182,739, is patented by affixing to
tative oricctrnrc
e
10
each piece of such glass made, sold and used by it since the
issuance of said Letters Patent of the United States and em-
hodying the said improvements the word ‘‘Patented”’ or a
proper abbreviation thereof, together with the ‘date of said
letters patent; that the plaintiff has strictly complied with
the requirements of Section 4900 of the Revised Statutes
of the United States in sueh cases made and provided;
that the plaintiff has notified the defendant in writing and
othérwise that the improvements shown, described and
claimed in Bald Letters Patent No. 1,182,739 are patented
de fondant is viol: ating ae exelusive rights
acquired by and secured to the plaintiff under said letters
patent ; ‘and that the defendant is committing the infring-
ing’ acts herein complained of with full knowledge of plain-
tiff’s rights.
[fol.14] Kighth. That at divers times between the date
a ¢1
ana. that the
of granting of said Letters Patent No. 1,182,739 and of the —
filing of this bill of complaint and within six years prior
to the filing of this bill of complaint, the defendant, well
knowing the faets hereinbefore set forth, but contriving to
injure the plaintiff and to deprive it of -the profits and ad-
vantages which might and otherwise would accrue to it from
said Letters Patent of the United States, No. 1,182,739,
and from the several improvements therein described and
claimed, has been and now is making and selling strength-
ened glass embodying the improvements therein described
and claimed in said Letters Patent of the United States,
No. 1,182,739; in the City of Pittsburgh, in the State of
Pennsylvania, within the Western District of Pennsyl-
‘vania, and elsewhere within the United States, all without
any license or allowance of the plaintiff and against the -
will of the plaintiff and in. violation of its exclusive rights
under the said Letters Patent of the United States, "Ne.
1,182,739; and that the defendant, as the plaintiff-is in-
formed and believes, Intends and threatens to continue to
make and sell strengthened glass embodying the improve-
.ments described and claimed in said Letters Patent of
the United States No. 1, 182,739, in the City of Pittsburgh,
in‘ the State of Pennsylvania, within the Western District
of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere within the United States,
without anv license or allowance of the plaintiff and in
defiance of the exclusive rights acquired by and secured
to the plaintiff under said Letters Patent of the United
wage
7M SEH PIN rd
11
States, No. 1 182,739; that by reason thereof the plaintiff
has been and is being depriv ed of great gains and profits
which might and otherwise would have been obtained by
it, but which have been and are now being received and en-
joyed by the defendant by and through “tts said unlawful
[fol. 15] acts and doings, to the great and irreparable loss
and injury of the plaintiff; that said unlawful acts and
doings of the defendant and its disregard and defiance of
the exclusive rights of the plaintiff, as aforesaid, have the
effect to and do encourage others to infringe said Letters
Patent of the United States, No. 1,182, 729, and to disre-
gard the exclusive rights of ‘the plaintiff thereunder; ; and
that the plaintiff is unable to state how much strengthened
glass embodying the improvements described and claimed
in said Letters Patent of the United States, No. 1,182,739,
the defendant has made or has caused to be made and sold,
or caused to be sold, as aforesaid, but is informed and be-
lieves and therefore avers that the defendant has- made
and sold strengthened glass in the City of Pittsburgh, in
the State of Pennsylvania, within-the Western District
of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere within the United States,
in infringement of said Letters Patent of the Wnited
States, No. 1,182,739, and prays a discovery thereof.
Wherefore the plaintiff prays:
1. That the defendant be compelled to account for all
strengthened glass embodying any of the improvements
described and claimed in said Letters Patent of the United -
States No. 1,182,739, which it has manufactured or sold
or caused to be manufactured or sold in the City of Pitts-
burgh, in the State of Pennsylvania, within the Western
District of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere within the United
States, in infringement of said Letters Patent of the United
igi No. 1,182,739.
. That the defendant be compelled to account for and
pay to the plaintiff all profits, gains and savings by it
acquired and the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff
from the infringement by the defendant of said Letters
Patent of the United States No. 1,182,739..
[fol. 16] ©3. That the defendant and its officers, agents,
servants, attorneys, employees, and each of them may be
restrained from any further violation of the exclusive
~~ samillieanaecre - . ‘ | :
PEWS
12
rights of the plaintiff under and from infringement of said
Letters Patent of the United States, No. 1,182,739.
4. That the defendant may be decreed to pay the costs of
this, suit.
do. The plaintiff further prays for a writ of injunction
issuing from and under the seal of this Honorable Court
perpetually enjoining and restraining the defendant and
its officers, agents, servants, attorneys and employees from
further making or selling or causing to be made or sold
any strengthened glass embodying any of the improve-
ments described and claimed in Letters Patent .of the
United States No. 1,182,739, in‘violation of the exclusive
rights of the plaintiff hereunder and in infringement of
said Letters Patent of the United States, No. 1,182,739.
6. And plaintiff further prays that a provisional or pre-
liminary injunction be issued restraining the defendant
from.any further infrv ~t of said Letters Patent of
the United States, No. » 82,739.
7. And plaintiff further prays for a writ of subpeena ad
respondendum issuing out of and under the séal of this
Honorable Court directing the defendant and commanding
it, on a day certain therein to be named, to appear and.to
answer this bill of complaint (but not under oath, an an-
swer under oath: being hereby expressly waived) and to
abide by and perform such orders and. decrees as to this
Court shall seem meet and may be réquired by the prin-
ciples of equity and good conscience.
[fol.17] 8. And for such other and further relief as the
circumstances of the case may require.
Triplex Safety Glass Company otf North America,
by Amory L. Haskell, President.
Attest: Starr Cooper, Secretary. William B. Greeley,
Drury W. Cooper, New York, of Counsel for Plaintiff.
(Seal.) Brown & Critchlow, 1526 Farmers Bank Bldg.,
Pittsburgh, Pa., Solicitors for Plaintiff.
Duly sworn to by Amory L. Haskell. Jurat omitted im
printing. . :
[fol. 18 | In Unitep States Districr Courr
DeEFenDANn’’s ANswer—Filed March 4, 1929
I. Defendant admits the corperate existence of the plain-
tiff as averred in paragraph first of the bill of complaint
and it admits itself to’be a corporation of the State of Dela-
ware, having its principal office and regular and established
place of business at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, but it de-
nies that it has committed any act of infringement within
the Western District of Pennsylvania or elsewhere.
II. With respect to the averments of paragraphs third
and fourth of the bill of complaint, defendant admits the
issue of letters patent therein named, No. 1,182,739, to
Edouard Benedictus, but it denies that the said letters
patent were lawfully issued, as well as that there was
thereby granted to the said Edouard Benedictus, his heirs,
[fol. 19] legal representatives or assigns, any exclusive
right or liberty, and. it denies all the other averments con-
tained in said paragraphs third and fourth.
IIT. As to the averments of paragraph fifth of the bill of
complaint, defendant is without knowledge.
IV. As to the averments of paragraph sixth of the bill of
complaint, defendant is without knowledge.
>
V. Whether or not the plaintiff has marked strengthened
glass manufactured and sold by it, and alleged to embody
the alleged improvements of the said letters patent, as ‘pat-
ented,’’ as averred in paragraph seventh of the bill of com-
plaint, defendant is without knowledge. Defendant admits
that prior to the filing of the bill of complaint it was notified
of the said letters patent and of its alleged infringement
thereof, but it denies that it has committed any infringine
acts either before or after such notice:
‘VI. Defendant denies that at any time it has miade or
sold, is now making or selling, or intends to make or sell any
strengthened glass embodying any of the alleged improve-
ments purporting to be described and claimed in the said
letters patent, within the Western District of Pennsylvania
or elsewhere, and it denies each and all of the averments of
paragraph eighth of the bill of complaint.
oe Pe
aa ss ei acti ew: .
14
VII. Defendant denies that Edouard Benedictus, in said
bill of complaint named, was the true, original and first in-
ventor of any of the alleged improvements purporting to be
set forth in the said Letters Patent No. 1,182,739, or of any
material or substantial part thereof; on the contrary, de-
fendant avers the fact to be, that prior to the pretended ~
invention thereof by the said Bénedictus, and for more than
two years prior to the date of his application for the said
[ fol. 20] letters patent, the said alleged improvements, in all
material and substantial parts, had been known and used in
this country, and had been patented and described in
printed publications in this and foreign countries, as is dis-
closed in and by the following:
United States Letters Patent |
No. 346,864, dated August 3d, 1886, to Read.
No. 610,861, dated September 13th, 1898, to Goodwi in.
No..765, 975, dated July 19, 1904, io Fields.
No. 830,398, dated September 4th, 1906, to Wood.
~ English Letters Patent
No. 3250 of 1873, to Holyaoke.
No. 5080 of 1884, to Cunliffe.
No. 15303 of 1884, to Fulticks.
No. 17126 of 1900, to Hofer.
No. 9972 of 1905, to Wood.
French Letters Patent
No. 356,076 of 1905, to Wood.
No. 404,795, of 1909, to Soulier.
_ VIII. Defendant, in further denial of invention by the —
said Benedictus of any of the said alleged improvements,
avers that in view of the state of the art as it existed at and
prior to his, application for the said letters patent, and at
and prior to his pretended invention thereof, the said al-
leged improvements did not, nor did any of them, constitute,
contain or embody any patentable subject matter. In proof
of such prior state of the art, defendant will refer, among
other matters, to the prior letters patent listed in ‘the last
“preceding paragraph.
ee
15
IX. Defendant, further answering, avers that the de-
scription or specification filed by the said Benedictus in the
{fol. 21] Patent Office, in making his application for the said
letters patent, was defective and misleading and did not set
forth the manner and process of making | constr ucting, com-
pounding and using his said alleged i impr ovements in suffi-
ciently full, clear and exact terms as to enable a person
skilled in the art to which they appertain to make, construct,
compound and use tlie same.
XT. Defendant, further answering, avers that for the
_purpose of deceiving the public, the description or specifi-
cation filed by the said Benedictus in the Patent Office, in
making his application for the said letters patent, was made
to contain less than the whole truth relative to his pretended
invention or discovery. .
XII. Defendant denies the equity of the Said bill of com-
plaint; it denies that the plaintiff has any right to any in-
Junction, preliminary or perpetual, or to any accounting of
damages or profits, or to the costs of this suit, or to any
relief whatever against this defendant: and it further
denies that the said bill ef complaint states any good cause
of action. All.of which matters and things defendant is
ready to prove and maintain as this Honorable Court shall
. direct, atid it humbly prays that it be hence dismissed with
its reasonable costs and charges in this behalt most wrone-
fully sustained.
Christy & Christy, Solicitors for Defendant. James
C. Bradley, C. H. Biesterfeld, Marshall A. Christy,
Of Counsel.
[ fol. 22] In Unirep States Districr Courr
STIPULATION AS-TO CHANGE OF Name—Filed December 9, 1929
It is hereby stipulated by and between the solicitors for
the i1espective parties to the above-entitled suit that the
name of the defendant was changed pursuant to provisions
of the laws of the State of Delaware from ‘Pittsburgh
Safety Glass Company”’ to ‘‘Duplate Corporation’? subse-
quent to the filing of the bill of complaint herein, and may
be changed of record in this case to Duplate Corporation,
oie
a
16
and that an order. to the foregoing effect may be entered
without further notice to either party. »
Brown & Critchlow, Solicitors for Plaintiff. Mar-
shall A. Christy, Solicitor for Defendant... -
—_————— -—
ORDER
And now, this ninth day of December, 1929, it is so
ordered.
F.. P. Schoonmaker, United States District Judge.
[fol. 23] In Unitep States District Court
[Title omitted]
OrpEr As TO SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF Compiart—Filed Octo-
ber 7, 1931 —
This case came on to be meas on plaintiff’s motion for
leave to file the attached supplemental bill, and, counsel for
defendants not objecting thereto, it is
Ordered that said supplemental bill be filed.
F’. P. Schoonmaker, United States District Judge.
October 7, 1981.
Counsel for the defendants’ Pittsburgh Plate Glass Com-
pany and Duplate Corporation does not object to the entry
of the attached order granting leave to Triplex Safety Glass
Company of North America to file a supplemental bil!
against Duplate Corporation and Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Company in the cause now pending before this Court and
marked in Equity as No. 2295. :
Dated October 6, 1931.
‘Marshall A. Christy, Appearing Specially Only for
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company.
[fol. 24] In Unirep States District Court
SUPPLEMENTAL BILL or CompLaint—Filed October 7, 1931
To the Honorable the Judges of the District Court of the
United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania:
The Triplex Safety Glass Company of North America, a
corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of
Delaware, having its principal office in Clifton, in the State
of New Jersey, the plaintiff in the original bill of complaint
filed in this cause against Duplate Corporation, by way of
supplement to said original bill of complaint, with leave of
Court first had and obtained, files this its supplemental bill
of complaint in this cause against Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Company, and alleges as follows:
First. That Pittsburgh Plate Giass Company is a corpo-
ration of the State of Pennsylvania, having its principal
office and place of business in the City of Pittsburgh, in the
State of Pennsylvania and is an inhabitant and resident of
the Western District of Pennsylvania. .
Dy aa)
Second. On information and belief that Dupont Viscaloid
Company is a corporation of the State of Delaware, having
its principal office in the City of Wilmington, in the State
-of Delaware and is not an inhabitant or resident of the.
Western District of Pennsylvania and therefore is not made |
a party hereto because it is not within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court.
See aera ea ae
Third. That Duplate Corporation is -a corporation of
Delaware having an office and a regular and established
place of business in the City of Pittsburgh, in the State of
[fol.25] Pennsylvania, within the Western District of
Pennsylvania and is made a party hereto because it is the °
defendant named in the original bill, but no other or fur-
ther relief is prayed for herein against Duplate Corpora- —
tion than the relief prayed against it in said original bill
of complaint.
- Fourth. That this is a supplemental suit in equity aris-
ing under the Patent Laws of the United. States for the
infringement of Letters Patent of the United States No.
2—767-768
i Diget=
.
>
’ wy ae _
es ee SS ES eee Sak aes a
“se
18
1,182,739, dated May 9, 1916 and granted to Edouard Ben-
edictus.
Fifth. That heretofore and on or about the thirty-first
day: of December, 128, plaintiff filed its original bill of
complaint in this "Honorable Court against the defendant,
Duplate Corporation, in which original bill of complaint
plaintiff charged infringement of claim 12 of said Letters
Patent of the United States No. 1,182,739 and prayed for
‘an injunction and accounting for damages and profits, all
of which is more particularly set forth in said original bill
of complaint filed in the office of the clerk of this court on
the thirty-first day of December, 1928, to which the plain-
tiff begs leave to refer with the same effect as if the same
were set forth here in full; that defendant, Duplate Corpo-
ration, duly filed its answer in this Court on March 4, 1929;
that the issues thus joined by the original bill of complaint
and defendant’s answer thereto, came’on to be heard before
the Honorable F. P. Schoonmaker, United.States District
Judge of this court; that an interlocutory decree was en-
tered therein on December 9, 1929, adjudging said United
States Letters Patent No. 1,182,739 valid and infringed by
the defendant, Duplate Corporation, and enjoining said de-
fendant, Duplate Corporation, from further infringement |
of said letters patent and ordering an accounting before
G. Dixon Shrum, Esq., as Special Master, to determine the
{ fol. 26] damages and profits arising out of the defendant,
Duplate Corporation’s, infringement; that defendant, Du-
plate Corporation, appealed from said decree to the Cir-
cuit Court of Appeals for the Third Cireuit; that said ap-
peal was heard and that said decree was in all respects
affirmed by the said Cireuit Court of Appeals for the Third
Cireuit; that thereafter the hearings on the accounting
* before the said G. Dixon Shrum, Esq., were commenced on
May 11, 1931, continued from time. to time and are still
pending.
«
Sixth: Plaintiff further avers that at such hearings
before said Special Master, plaintiff first learned the fol-
lowing facts which were unknown and could not by reason-
able diligence have been known t or to any of its officers
or directors before such heari
On or about December
Glass Company, and gs
~ 1927, soba Pittsburgh Plate
Dupont Visealoid Company, en-
Mo SDB PL CAR hs ee
19
tered intoa written'agreement, the pertinent parts of which
are hereinafter summarized. 3
The agreement recites that the parties thereto (Pitts-
burgh Plate Glass Company and Dupont Viscaloid Com- |
pany) ‘‘desire to enter into a joint enterprise having for
its object the manufacture and sale of non-splintering
glass’’; that the parties will cause to be incorporated a
Delaware corporation referred to in said agreement as
‘Glass Company”’ which shall havea $1,000,000 authorized
capital stock; that each of the parties avill subscribe $100,-.
000 of the authorized issue and also will subscribe for the
balance of said capital stock when and as it may be re-
quired; that Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company and Dupont |
Viscaloid Company would always vote their respective
stockholdings in such manner that three of the six members
of the board of directors of the proposed Glass Company
would be representatives of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Com-
[fol. 27] pany and the remaining three would be representa-
tives of Dupont-Viscaloid Company; that the board of di-
rectors of the proposed Glass Company would vote at meet-
ings of such board so that the president and general man-
ager of the Glass Company should always be representa-.
tives of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company and that the
chairman of the board of directors of the Glas& Company
should always be a representative ofthe Dupont Viscaloid
Company. The agreement also contains various provisions
relating to the lease or acquisition of a plant site, the erec-
tion of a plant, the number of directors and the manner of
electing them; that the Glass Company shall have the non-
exclusive right to use patents, formule, processes ‘and in-
ventions owned by Dupont Viscaloid Company and/or
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company free from the payment of
any royalty; that upon the acquisition of any United States
or foreign patents by either Dupont Viscaloid Compafiy or
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, the proposed corporation
shall be notified and shall have certain rights to: acquire
such patents, or acquire rights thereunder; that the cer-
_tificate of incorporation sha]l be acceptable to counsel for
the Dupont Viscaloid Company and counsel for tlie Pitts-
burgh Plate Glass Company; that the Dupont Viscaloid
Company and Piftyburgh Plate-Glass Company aeree not:
to sell, assign or-hYpothecate their respective stockhold-
ings in the proposed company without first offerine them
' to eachother; that to the end that the Pittsburgh Plate
ie ;
ee CORR .
itis: Bay NEA A Ed ae
Glass Company and the Dupont Visealoid Company shall
have and enjoy the maximum benefits and profits from the
‘joint undertaking, the proposed company shall purchase
from the Dupont Viscaloid Company all pyroxylin plastics
and from the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company all polished
plate glass and/or window glass and from either or both
[fol. 28] all other basic materials which shall be needed or
used in the business of the proposed company.
Seventh. Plaintiff further avers that on December 28,
1927, pursuant to said agreement, Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Company, acting in conjunction with Dupont Viscaloid
Company caused to be organized under the laws of the
State of Delaware, Pittsburgh Safety Glass Company, the
name of which was subsequently changed to.Duplate Cor-
poration, constituting the joint enterprise provided for in
said agreement of Deeember 14, 1927.
Fighth. That the board of directors of said joint enter-
prise, now known as Duplate Corporation, consisted of six
members, three of whom were members of the board of di-
rectors of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company and the re-
maining three were members of the board of directors of
Dupont Viscaloid Company ; that the president of said joint
enterprise was the president of Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Company and the chairman of the boar® of directors of
said joint enterprise was the aati, By of Dupont Viscaloid
‘Company.
That during the first few months of the existence of said
joint enterprise, now known as Duplate Corporation, the
printed order forms of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company
were used as the printed order forms of Duplate Corpora-
tion; that the printed records and forms of Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Company designated said joint enterprise, now
known as Duplate- Corporation, as ‘*‘The Laminated Glass
Department’? of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company; that
said joint enterprise, now known as Duplate Corporation,
used as its general offices the general offices of Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Company without the payment of any-rental
therefor; that the bookkeepers employed and paid by Pitts-°
[fol. 29] bargh Plate Glass Company made entries in and >
in other respects kept the books of said joint enterprise,
now known as’ Duplate Corporation; that for the period of
more than a year after the said joint enterprise, now known
21
as Duplate Corporation, commenced business, the said joint
enterprise occupied a part of one of the factories of Pitts-
burgh Plate Glass Company, free from the payment of any
rental therefor; that the Pittsburgh Plate Glass -Company
sranted preferential prices for plate glass to said joint
enterprise, now known as Duplate Corporation, said prefer-
ential prices being substantially under the market price
charged other ang unrelated customers; that the officers
and employees.of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company and par-
ticularly. those in charge of the sales department of Pitts-
burgh Plate Glass Company, determined and established
the prices to be charged by said joint enterprise, now known
as Duplate Corporation, for its.product; that the Pitts .
burgh Plate Glass Company, under the nominal title of
‘Sales Agent’? sold the product of said-jeint enterprise,
now knqwn as Duplate Corporation, to the consumers
thereof; that the joint enterprise, now known as Duplate
Corporation, paid a selling commission to Pittsburgh Plate
Gilass Company and that the amount of that selling’ com-
mission was the subject of an agreement, verbal or other-
wise, between the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company and
Dupont Viscaloid Company; that the prices charged the
consumers of the strengthened glass manufactured and sold
by said joint enterprise, now known as Duplate Corpora-
tion, were not only szbject to secret rebate agreements be-
tween Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company and some of said
consumers, but the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company insti-
tuted a cut-price policy and in other respects so negligently -
and recklessly conducted the business of said joint enter-
(fol. 30] prise, now known as Duplate Corporation, that
not only the original investment of $1,000,000 ‘in said joint,
enterprise, but also the profits earned by said joint enter--
. prise, now known as Duplate Corporation, have been
wasted and dissipated with the result that on the face of.
the accounting heretofore filed by the said Duplate Corpo-
ration with the Special Master appointed herein, the said
joint enterprise, now known as Duplate Corporation, is
now insolvent; that in or about February 1931 Pittsburgh -
Plate Glass Company, either through a stock purchase from
said Dupont Visealoid Company, or otherwise, acquired all
of the issued capital stock and through such stock owner-
ship is now the owner of all the assets of said joint enter-
prise, now known as Duplate Corporation.
TOOT RE hn, Renae i a ital Se ea aes ETISEIRE SE CRY rm eA RECN NS PERC
22
Ninth. This plaintiff further avers that Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Company has since on or about December 28, 1927,
caused to be carried on the manufacture of the strength-
ened glass complained of in the original bill of complaint
filed herein and decreed by this Court to be an gees
ment of said United States Letters Patent No. 1,182,
and that Pittsburgh Platé Glass Company inatigated, | in-
_ itiated and contributed to the said infringing manufacfure
of said strengthened glass for its own private profit, benefit
and advantage and to that end caused to be incorporated
the joint enterprise, now known as the Duplate Corpora-
tion, in an attempt.to carry on said infringing manufacture,
or cause the same to be carried on without subjecting itself |
to liability therefor; that at all times since December 28,
1927, said Pittsbur gh Plate Glass Company, as one of the
parties to the joint enterprise, now known as Duplate Cor-
poration, had and now has the power to control, and did -
and, now does control and operate said joint enterprise,
now known as the Duplate Corporation.
[fol.31] Tenth. This plaintiff further avers that the said
joint enterprise, now known .as Duplate Corporation, is
not able to and/or will net be able to respond or pay any
damages or profits which may be awarded against it and
that the decree heretofore entered in the original suit
against the Duplate Corporation, awarding the plaintiff a
‘perpetual injunction and profits and damages, is not and
will not be effective unless this Court also directs that a
perpetual injunction issue against the said defendant,
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company and unless this court also
directs that said Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company is re-
sponsible for and must pay to this plaintiff the profits
which have accrued,to the said, joint enterprise, Duplate
Corporation, from the infringing of said Letters Patent of
the United States, No. 1,182,739, as well as the damages
_ suffered by the plaintiff by reason of the‘aforesaid infring-
ing manufacture by the said joint enterprise, now known
as Duplate Corporation; that this plaintiff, unless the re-
lief hereinafter prayed for is granted will not be afforded
a coniplete and adequate remedy and will not be protected
in its exclusive rights and privileges in, to and under said
Letters Patent of the United States No. 1,182,739, as de- -
creed by this Court in the original] suit herein,
Sea wea ; ois Peas Pare eR TS ~ hasta Seay |
‘
23
Wherefore, plaintiff prays:
1. That a writ of subpena ad respondendum issue out
of and under the seal of this Honorable Court, directed to
the defendant, Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, and com-
manding it on a day certain therein to be named, to appear
and answer this bill-of complaint (but not under oath, an
answer under oath being hereby expressly waived) and to
abide by and perform such orders and decrees as to this
Court shall seem meet and may be required by the prin-
ciples of equity and good conscience.
[fol.32] 2. That the defendant, Pittsburgh Plate Glass P
Company be adjudged responsible for the acts and doings a
of Duplate Corporation; and be compelled to account for e
and pay to the plaintiff all profits, gains and savings
made by said Duplate Corporation and itself and the ac-
tual damages suffered by the plaintiff from the infringe-
ment by Duplate Corporation and. Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Company, of said Letters Patent of the United States No.
1,182,739. | :
3. That a writ of injunction issue: froni and under. the
seal of this Honorable Court perpetually enjoining and re- :
straining the defendant, Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, e
and each of its respective officers, agents, servants, aftor- f
neys and employees, from further making, selling or using, :
or causing to be made sold or used, or assisting others and
particularly Duplate Corporation from making, selling or
using, any strengthened glass embodying any of the im-
provements described and claimed in Letters Patent of
the United States No. 1,182,739, in violation of the exclu-
sive rights of the plaintiff thereunder and in infringement
of said Letters Patent of tlie United States No. 1,182,739,
as heretofore decreed by this Honorable Court.
apes PIT Eee PGR ce Epp erate
Sy
es a a,
e
4. That the plaintiff may have the- benefit of the said
original suit heretofore brought against the Duplate Cor-
poration and may also have the benefit of all proceedings
heretofore had therein against the defendant, Pittsburgh
Plate Giass Company; and may have the same relief
against the said Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company as plain- .
tiff hd or could have had against the said Duplate Cor- L
poration. |
a a a ty “>. - =
Gece NR Raita ee alee A wa r andes
=
94
5. That the said Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company be de-
creed to pay the costs of this supplemental suit, as well as
the costs of the original suit.
[fol.33] 6. That this plaintiff have such other and fur-
ther relief as the circumstances of the case may require.
Triplex Safety Glass Companty of North America,
by Sydney W. Caulfield, Vice-President. Brown
& Critchlow, Attorneys for Plaintiff, 1526 Farm-
ers Bank Building, Pittsburgh, Pennsy Ivania.
William B. Greeley, Drury W. Cooper, Counsel.
Duly sworn to by Sydney W. Caulfield. Jurat omitted
in printing.
[fol. 34] In Unrrep States District Court
ANSWER OF PiTTsBURGH PLATE Guass GClompany—F iled
_ October 21, 1931
The answer of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, joined
herein as party defendant by supplemental bill of com-
plaint, to the said supplemental bill of Triplex Safety
Glass Company of North America, plaintiff.
I. Defendant admits the corporate existence and the re- ~J
spective domiciles of the respective corporations named in
paragraphs first, second and third - said supplemental
bilt of complaint.
II. The averments of nee fifth of the said sup-
plemental bill are admitted.
III. With respect to the averments of ‘paragraph sixth
of the said supplemental bill, this defendant admits that
on or about December 14, 1927, it entered into a certain
written agreement with Dupont Viscoloid Company, named
in said supplemental bill, but denying the averments of the
said paragraph sixth as therein made, this. defendant re-
fers to the said written agreement bearing date December
14, 1927, ready in court to be produced, as setting —
each and all of the provisions thereof.
IV. Defendant admits the averments of paragraph sev-
enth of said supplemental bill.
i ~~ wie eval seS ne
25
V. Answering the averments of paragraphs eighth and
ninth of the said supplemental bill, this defendant denies
the same, excepting only such as may be comprehended
within the following statement, which this defendant avers
to be correct: As admitted in the last above paragraph IV,
this defendant jointly with the said Dupont Viscoloid
Company in said bill of: complaint mentioned organized
[fol. 35] and effected incorporation of ‘the said Duplate
Corporation in said supplemental bill mentioned, under the
original name of Pittsburgh Safety Glass Company. Of
the capital stock of said corporation this defendant owned
one-half, and the-said Dupont Viscoloid Company owned
the other half. Such stock ownership continued until on
or about January 1, 1931, at which time this defendant pur-
chased the entire stock ownership of the said Dupont Vis-
coleid Company, and since said last mentioned date this
defendant has been the owner of the entire capital stock
of said Duplate Corporation. Prior to January 1,- 1931,
the operations of the said Duplate Corporation were con-
trolled jointly by this defendant and the said Dupont Vis- ”
coloid Company. Since January 1, 1931, this defendant
has been and is now in sole control of the operations of
said Duplate Corporation. This defendant has not manu-
factured or used any so-called. strengthened glass such as
is mentioned in the said supplemental bill, but it has acted
as selling agent and in that capacity only has sold the
product of the said Duplate Corporation, receiving for its
services a commission of a small percentage of the actual
selling price. ,
This defendant denies each and every averment, in said
bill of complaint contained or implied, as to any want of
good faith, of concealment of relation, or desire or intent
to avoid responsibility, in and about the organization and
incorporation of the said Duplate Corporation, and in
carrying on the business of the said Duplate Corporation
in the manufacture and sale of its product, and it further
denies that the business of the séid Duplate Corporation
was ever carried on as a branch or department of this
defendant, or otherwise than as a distinct and separate
business of the:said Duplate Corporation, as in fact it was.
On the contrary, this defendant avers the fact to be, that
[fol. 36] the said Duplate Corporation was originally or-
ganized and incorporated, and has at all times since con- .
anere s RP ic " i : il
PONENT HONE ITNT
Sa ace
BS a eS
Syte meq
REE SIE en fenpore ries wee goa sy
ROT SR,
OPE EVA, «
irene estes cess caine i tegsesse Fiseces tessa Jo
26
tinued in business, in good faith and for valid and lawful
commercial reasons. Defendant further denies that, ex-
cept as hereinabove stated, it has manufactured, sold or
used, or instigated, initiated, or contributed to any manu-
facture, sale or use, or caused to be carried on any manu-
facture, sale, or use, of any strengthened glass such as is
described and claimed in Létters Patent No. 1,182,739, men-
‘tioned in said supplemental bill. And defendant further
denies that at any time during the existence and operation
of said Duplate Corporation “the facts in this paragraph
‘hereinbefore stated were unknown to the said plaintiff, as
well as that they could not have been discovered by it by
_ reasonable diligence. ¢
VI. Defendant’ denies each and all of the allegations of
fact and conclusions set forth -in paragraph tenth of said
supplemental bill.
This defendant denies the equity of the said bill of com-
plaint; it denies that the plaintiff has any right to any in-
‘junction, preliminary or perpetual, or to any accounting
of damages or profits or to the costs of this suit or to any
relief whatever against this defendant; and it further de-
nies that the said bill of complaint states any good cause
of action.
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, by Christy,
Christy & Wharton, Solicitors. Marshall A.
Christy, James C. Bradley, of Counsel. ;
Pittshurzh, Pennsylvania, October 20, 1931.
[fol.37] Ix Unirep States District Court ror THE WEst-
ERN District oF PENNSYLVANIA
In Equity. No. 2295
TripLex Sarety Guass Company or NortH AMERICA, oe
Plaintiff,
v.
PirtsnurGH Sarety Guass Company, Defendant
Present: Honorable Frederic P. Schoonmaker, United
States District Judge.
IntTERLOcUTORY DecreE—Filed December 9, 1929
This suit came on at this term of court and was tried on
final hearing and argued and submitted by counsel for both
27
parties; and thereupon, upon consideration and determina-
tion thereof by this Court, it is
Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed as follows:
1. That letters patent named in the bill of complaint, to
wit, Letters Patent of the United States No. 1,182,739,
granted.on May 9, 1916, on the invention of and to Edouard
Benedictus for Manufacture of Strengthened Glass, is good
and valid in law as to. claim numbered 12 thereof and that
title to said letters patent is vested in plaintiff, Triplex
Safety Glass Company of North America.
“. That the defendant, Pittsburgh Safety Glass Com-
pany, has infringed upon the said Letters Patent of the
[fol. 38] United States No. 1,182,739 as to claim numbered
12 thereof and has violated the exclusive rights of the plain-
tiff thereunder.
3. That a writ of injunction, in accordance: with the
prayer of the bill of complaint, directed to the defendant,
Pittsburgh Safety Glass Company, be issued out of: and
under the seal of this Court perpetually enjoining and re-
straining defendant, Pittsburgh Safety Glass Company, its
officers, agents, servants, attorneys and employees, from
further making or selling or causing to.be made or sold
strengthened glass embodying the invention set forth and
claimed in claim numbered 12 of said Letters Patent of the
United States No. 1,182,739. .
4. That the plaintiff recover from the defendant the
profits, gains-and advantages which the said defendant has
received or made or which may have arisen or accrued to it
by the manufacture and sale of strengthened glass in in- -_
fringement upon and violation of the invention of claim
numbered 12 of said Letters Patent of the United States .
No. 1,182,739.
0. That the plaintiff recover from the defendant the dam.
’ ages resulting to plaintiff from the infringement by the de-
_ fendant of claim numbered 12 of said Letters Patent of the
United States No. 1,182,739.
6. That this case be referred to G. Dixon Shrum, of
Pittsburgh, Pa., as a Special Master of this court, who is
hereby appointed to- ascertain, take, state and report to
the Court an account of the quantity of strengthened glass
described and claimed in claim numbered 12 of said Letters
7 s
Hae ap be cramer Maen
he OL Sha ees tur
oe
ie SEAT OL serena Sy AG
SRA ae Rt
we be cages a ar PEL SERTIN NNR CPOE oI
RETA REE RRS ITN
28
Patent of the United-States No. 1,182,739 made, used or
sold by defendant and also the gains, profits and advan-
tages which the defendant has received or which have arisen
[fol. 39] and accrued to it from infringement upon the said
exclusive rights of plaintiff under said letters patent as to
claim numbered 12 thereof, and also the damages which the
plaintiff has suffered because of defendant’s said. infringe-
ment upon claim numbered 12 of said Letters Patent of
the United States No. 1,182,739.
‘ 7. That the plaintiff on such accounting shall have the
right to cause the examination of the officers, servants,
agents and employees of defendant and also to examine
other witnesses and to cause the production and examina-
tion of the books, vouchers, records and documents of the
defendant and to have the necessary process of the Court
‘to compel such attendance and production of books, vouch-
ers, records and documents of defendant before the Master
at such times and places as the Master shall from time to
- time direct.
a
. That the plaintiff shall recover from the defendant the’
Pe expended by it in this court and that it. shall have
judgment and execution of this court against the defendant
for said costs.
F. P. Schoonmaker, United States District Judge.
SS
-[fol. 40] In Unitrep States District Court ror THE WEsT-
ERN District or PENNSYLVANIA
In Equity. No. 2295
TripLex Sarety Guass Company or NortH AMERICA
v. |
DvuPpLATE CoRPORATION AND PiItTsBURGH PLATE GLass
CoMPANY
InTERLOCUTORY DecreE Upon SuppLEMENTAL BILL AND
Answer—Filed December 5, 1931 .
And Now, to wit, December 5, 1931, this cause having
come on to be heard upon: the supplemental bill against
the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company and the answer of
Stone | i
Ra cc na kk RON TT in int alias a eee NE
29
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company thereto, it is, by consent,
Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed as follows:
1. That the said supplemental defendant, Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Company, has jointly with the above-named
defendant, Duplate Corporation, and by its own acts as
well, infringed upon the Letters Patent of the United States
here in suit, No. 1,182,739, as to claim 12 thereof, heretofore
adjudged to be valid by this Court, and has violated the
- exclusive rights of the plaintiff thereunder.
2. That a writ of injunction, in accordance with the
‘prayer of the said supplemental bill of complaint, be issued
out of and under the seal of this Court perpetually enjoin-
ing and restraining the said defendant, Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Company, and each of its respective officers, agents,
(fol. 41] servants, attorneys and employees from further
making, selling or using, or causing to be made, sold or .
used, or assisting others, and particularly said Duplate
Corporation, in making, selling or using any strengthened
glass involving the invention set forth in claim 12 of said
Letters Patent of the United States No. 1,182,739, in viola-
tion of the exclusive rights of the plaintiff thereunder.
3. That the plaintiff recover from said supplemental de-
fendant, Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, the profits, gains
and advantages which the said supplemental defendant has
received or made or which ‘have accrued to it from its said
infringement of the said letters patent, together with the
damages suffered by the said plaintiff from such infringe-
ment, and that with respect to any and all recoveries ad-
judged against the said Duplate Corporation by way of
profits, damages, costs or otherwise, the said supplemental
defendant Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company and the said
Duplate Corporation shall be jointly and severally liable
therefor. .
4. That the Special Master heretofore appointed by this
Court, G. Dixon Shrum, Esquire, of Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-
vania, shal? in the accounting proceedings now pending be-
fore him ascertain, take, state and report to this Court an
account of the quantity of strengthened glass described and
claimed in claim 12 of said Letters Patent of the United -
States No. 1,182,739, made, used or sold by the defendant,
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, and also the gains, profits
and advantages which the defendant, Pittsburgh Plate
| Pw
aoaattltinieiniomminntamteman ea Sat tL tg emisegsite aie
Glass Company,-has received or which have accrued to it
from said infringement upon the exclusive rights of plain-
tiff under claim 12 of said letters patent, and also the dam-
ages which the plaintiff has suffered because of the said
[fol. 42] supplemental defendant’s infringement upon claim
12 of said Letters Patent of the United States No. 1,182,739.
5. That the plaintiff on such accounting shall have the
right to cause the examination of the officers, servants,
agents and employes of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company
and also to examine other witnesses and to cause the pro-
duction and examination of the books, vouchers, records
and documents of the defendant, Pittsburgh Plate Glass
. Company, and shall have the necessary process of the Court
to compel such attendance and production of books, vouch-
ers, records and documents of said defendant, Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Company, before the Master at such times and
places.as the Master shall from time to time direct.
' 6. That the said supplemental defendant, Pittsburgh
. Plate Glass Company, shall pay the costs arising under
said supplemental bill and answer and shall also be jointly
and severally liable with. said Duplate Corporation for the
costs heretofore decreed against said Duplate Corporation.
F’. P. Schoonmaker, United States District Judge.
The foregoing decree is consented to. ;
Marshall A. Christy, Solicitors for Defendant, Pitts-
burgh Plate Glass Company. Brown’ & Critch-
low, Solicitors for Plaintiff, Triplex Safety Glass
Company of North America.
[fol.43] In Unrirep Srates District Court
[ Title omitted ]
RELEASE oF Bonp—Filed December 16, 1931
In consideration of the assumption by Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Company of all liability which may be adjudged
against defendant, Duplate, Corporation in this case, the
plaintiff, Triplex Safety Glass Company of North Ameri ica,
hereby releases Maryland Casualty Company, surety, from
all obligations assumed by it by the bond filed in this case
5. bi ne Tal et & JM ae ine oie ne
on December 10, 1929, and consents that an order may be
entered cancelling the obligation of said surety.
December 15, 1931. eee ;
Marshall A. Christy, Solicitors for Defendant.. Wil-
liam B. Greeley, Counsel for Plaintiff. .
In Unitep Stares District Court
OrvER Discuarcinc Surety on Bonp—Filed December 16,
1931
And Now, to wit, December 16, 1931, on reading the at-
tached consent of the plaintiff to the release of Maryland
Casualty Company, surety on the bond approved in this
case on December 10, 1929, it is Ordered that the said
surety, Maryland Casualty Company, be and hereby is re-
leased and discharged from all obligations under the said
bond.
F’. P. Schoonmaker, United States Judge.
[fol.44] In Unrrep Srartes District Court FoR THE
: Western District or PENNSYLVANIA
In Equity. No. 2295
TrmpLex Sarety Guiass Company or Nortu AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
ws.
2°
Dup.ate Corporation, Defendant
Accounting Proceeding Before the Master
_ Pittsburgh, Pa., July 28, 1930.
The parties met at the office of Brown & Critchlow,
solicitors for plaintiff, at 1526 Farmers Bank Building, on
the above date at 9 o’clock Eastern Standard Time, pur-
suant to notice.
Present: The Master, G. Dixon Shrum, Esq.; Jo. Baily
Brown, Esq., for plaintiff; Marshall A. Christy, Esq., for
defendant. ;
31
aa
ESTE EEA HLT
-
EAU MOS ROR Happ PRAISES cette
PERLE a porate ene: Me anemone onic. 8: ee ANe
L
Wiisrtisicstesiecic, évemsiyi
‘
WBS. Qo . — ’
ek eds Se
ea
?
32
Mr. Brown presented to the Master a notice with serv-
ice acknowledged thereon by solicitors for defendant of the
motion for an order requiring defendant to file an account.
’ Mr. Christy stated that he had no objection to the entry of
the order, except that he wanted more time and asked that
the return day be fixed as September 15th. This was ac-
- cepted by the Master, and not objected to by solicitors for
plaintiff, and thereupon the Master entered the following
order: :
[fol. 45] Orver For DEFENDANT TO Avene AND FILe
STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT, ETC.
To Duplate Corporation (formerly Pittsburgh Safety Glass
Company) Defendant:
Pursuant to the interlocutory decree entered in the above
case on December 9, 1929, you are hereby directed to ap-
pear before me at the office of Brown & Critchlow, 1526
Farmers Bank Building, on the Fifteenth day of Septem-
ber, 1930, at Nine O’cl@ck in the morning, Eastern Stand-
ard Time, and then and there to bring in and file an account
certified by the oath or oaths of such of your officers or
agents as shall have the most certain and full knowledge of
the matter, setting forth with regard to all strengthened
glass embodying the invention described’ and claimed in
Claim 12 of U. S. Patent No. 1, 182 ,739, the following:
1. The total amount of such infringing glass manufac-
tured, sold, or used by or for you down to the time of filing
of said account; and
. In debit and eredit form all gains, profits, and ad-
: sma which you have derived, received or made by 1 Tea-—
son of the said manufacture, sale or use.
And it is further ordered that all books, papers, voucti-
ers, and other documents relating to the matter at issue,
and particularly those in which were entered any data con-
cerning the cost of manufacture, extent of sale, or use of
such glass need not be produced at the time and place
herein specified, but shall be kept intact by you and remain
in your possession subject to further order. Adjourned
subject to call. .
entetine em ge te a ee rl ne tee ee
ee ae ee
33
| fol. 46} Pittsburgh, Pa., September 22, 1930.
The parties met at the office of Brown & Critchlow, 1526
Farmers Bank Building, at nine o’clock Eastern Standard
Time, pursuant to call of the Master.
Present: The Master, G. Dixon Shrum, Esq.; Jo. Baily
Brown, Esq., for plaintiff; James C. Bradley, Esq., for de-
fendant.
This meeting was held in place of the one previously or-
dered for September 15, by agreement of counsel and pur-
suant to informal direction of the Master.
Mr. Bradley produced a statement of account on behalf
of the defendant as called for by the Master’s order at the
' meeting of July 28, 1930, which was offered as defendant’s
‘statement of account and received and so marked by the.
Master. ms
A copy of this account was at the same time served on
counsel for plaintiff.
Mr. Brown moved the Master for an adjournment to a
later date, subject to-call of the Master, so that plaintiff’s
accountants and attorneys may have an opportunity to ex-
amine this account to decide upon cross-examination or
other steps that may be deemed advisable’ by them after
they have had an opportunity to study it.
Mr. Bradley stated that he had no objection to such ad-
journment and the Master thereupon. so ordered, stating
that he would give the parties ample notice of the next
meeting and of the witnesses and/or books, papers, ete., if -
any, to be produced at that time by the defendant for ex-
amination by the plaintiff. ,
Thereupon the meeting was adjourned..
[ fol. 47] [Title omitted }
Pittsburgh, Pa., October 15, 1930.
The parties met at the office of Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Company, 2200 Grant Building, at eleven o’clock Eastern
Standard Time, pursuant to eall of the Master.
3—767-768
=
PEDERI TERIOR Mens er ee na
BP eae
SARE Cg TRIE NITY MEA! ORF
AI ORO et A
*
HRT PET HD
;
ania wiaini sistas ih is chi gt
& es Se
34
Present: The Master, G. Dixon Shrum, Esq. ; Ambrose
~ L. O’Shea, Esq., for plaintitt James C. Bradley , Esq., for
defendant.
This meeting is held pursuant to peor between
counsel and with the consent of the Master.
STIPULATION AS TO CHECKING OF ACCOUNT, ETC.
It is stipulated that the plaintiff shall be given the oppor-
tunity of checking the account heretofore filed by the de-
fendant against the books of the defendant corporation,
and file in the case of a report of such check up, and for
that purpose the firm of Lybrand, Ross Brothers & Mont-
gomery, a firm.of certified public accountants are appointed
for general sipervision of such checl up. :
~ It is further stipulated that the expense of this check
up shall be borne in equal shares by the plaintiff and de-
-fendant, previded, that the defendant’s share of this ex-
; neo Ge exceed $1000. The firm of Lybrand, Ross
Brothers & Montgomery shall give instractions to the
- [fol.'48] subordinates who shall be employed on the check
up and who shall be furnished by the parties hereto as.
they may deem necessary for the proper checking up of the
account. This stipulation, however, is entered into without
prejudice to the rights of either party hereto to turther
examination of the books if they so see fit.
It is further under stood that the parties hereto reserve
all rights to objections as to the materiality, competency or
- relevancy of the report to be filed as a result of this, check
eo | , -
Thereupon the meeting was adjourned subject to the call
2 ‘of the Master for further hearings.
‘Pittsburgh, Pa., April 17, 1931.
; The, parties met at 1518 Farmers Bank Building, Pitts-
~. + burgh, Pennsylvania, at ten o’clock Eastern Standard Time,
pursuant to the following notice :
PRGA 9 BEE A I a en
35
‘‘NoticEe or AccéuntTING Proceepincs BEFORE G. Dixon
SHrvM, Specia, Master
Pittsburgh, Pa., April 13, 1931.
To Marshall A. Christy, Esq., Solicitor for Defendant. Jo.
Baily Brown, Esq., Solicitor for Plaintiff. William F.
Marsh, Resident Partner Lybrand, Ross Bros. & Mont-
gomery Auditors and Accountants... ~
GENTLEMEN :
Please take notice that at my office, 1508 Law & Finance
Building, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a meeting of Counsel
[fol. 49] is called for 10:00 A. M., Friday, April 17th, 1931
in the above entitled case, at which time the plaintiff will
be called upon for its report of the check-up of the account
heretofore filed by the Defendant against the books of the
Defendant Corporation, under. the general supervision 6f
Lybrand, Ross Bros. & Montgomery, Certified Public Ac-
countants, pursuant to ‘stipulation of Counsel October 15,
* 1930. .
: Yours very truly, G. Dixon Shrum, Special Master.”’
‘
Present: G. Dixon Shrum, Esq., Special Master; Jo.
Baily Brown, Esq., for the plaintiff; Marshall A. Christy,
lusq., for the defendant; William F. Marsh, Resident Part-
ner, Lybrand, Ross Bros. & Montgomery, Auditors and Ac-
countants: a, j
This meeting was held at. the office of Brown & Critch-
low, 1518 Farmers Bank Building, instead of at the office
of the Special Master, pursuant to agreement of the parties.
The Master stated that he called upon Mr. Marsh, resi-
dent partner of Lybrand, Ross Bros. & Montgomery, ‘for -
the report of the check-up which was being made under the
supervision of that firm, and that Mr. Marsh reported that
on April 1, 1931, he had sent to Mr. O’Shea, counsel for
the Triplex Company, two copies of said report, which was:
very voluminous. —
By Mr. Brown: I understand that the purpose of this
hearing is to expedite the proceeding ‘and to find out when
a further hearing can be held. EF am instructed by Mr.
[fol.50] O’Shea to state to the Master and counsel for
a tatiairn — — Bi i A ca oO re
a iar sn etka RN AST BS esi ee et
Be eee ET SE PEP q
CREEPS
WE Gat epee ge angie pats a . ,
PERE Re FBT LIRR A SO RIN Ahi A MRS ete itis:
a EG ae bk Brak Tay et A
36
defendant that he has been continuously engaged on the re-
port since its receipt from the accountants; that he regards.
this report as a part of his proofs in the case; that there-
fore he feels that he must carefully study it before offering
it in evidence; that he is anxious to proceed with the case
as soon as possible ; and that as now advised he thinks that
he will be ready to commence taking testimony and to put
_ in his entire case—subject td availability of witnesses— .
by a date commencing May’11th.
(By agreement of the parties the meeting was adjourned
until Monday, } May 11, at the office of Brown & Critchlow,
1518 Farmers Bank Building, Pittsburgh, Pa.)
_
[Title omitted |
Accounting Proceedings Before G. Dixon Shrum, Special
Master
The parties met at the office of Brown & Chitchlow, |
Farmers Bank Building, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, at nine
o’clock, Eastern Standard Time, Monday, May 11, 1931,
pur eiant to eall of the Master.
Present: For. Plaintiff : Ambrose L. 0’Shea,. Esq. For
. Defendant: Marshall A. Christy, Esq.
[fol.51] Mr. O’Shea: I would like to make a part of the
record my objections to the defendant’s account.
‘‘Opgections TO DEFENDANT’s Account as Fitep WITH THE
MAsTER
“Pirst. Plaintiff objects to the account as filed for the
- reason that it is not in proper form.
- Second. Plaintiff objects to the defendant’s account as
filed in that it does not set forth the individual sales made
by the defendant to its respective customers.
“Third. Plaintiff objegts to-the account as filed, m that
it offsets the losses défived from loss-incugring sales
against the profits derived by the defendant from: profit-
ineurring sales.
femal = ,
SR cir ak bee a ae a PRES
37
‘Fourth. Plaintiff objects to the account as filed, in that
it charges against the amounts received from sales the cost
of manufacturing large quanties of its product which was
not sold.
‘“‘Fifth. Plaintiff objects to the account.as filed, in that
it includes as an item of cost an amount representing the
material, labor and overhead incurred by the defendant in
the manufacture of goods which were returned by the cus-
tomérs and offsets the loss incurred thereby against the
profit-bearing sales. ;
‘*Sixth. Plaintiff objects to the account as filed, in that
for the year 1928 the defendant credits itself as an item of.
cost with 3,722,601 square feet of glass at a total purchase
price of $1,514,254.74, and also credits itself as an item of
cost with 2, 758 302 square feet of pyralin at a total pur-
chase. price of $445, 333.80, whereas it charges itself with
the sale of only 1,924,896 square feet of glass and 962,448
[fol. 52] square feet of pyralin at a total selling price of
$1,871,826.25, leaving a balance of 1,797,705 square feet of
-glass and 1,795,854 square feet of pyralin unaccounted for.
‘Seventh. Plaintiff objects to the account as filed, in that
for the year. 1929 defendant credits itself as an item of cost
with 5,287,322 square feet of glass at a total purchase price
of $2,159,062.17, and also credits itself as an item of cost
with 3,198,639 square’feet of pyralin at a total purchase
price of $706,855.53, whereas it charges itself with the sale
“of ‘only 4,038,720 square feet of glass and 2,019,360 square
feet of pyralin at a tetal selling price of $3,784,129.61, leav-
ing a balance of 1,248,602 square feet of glass and 1, 179, 279
square feet of pyralin unaccounted for. |
“Bighth. Plaintiff objects to the account as filed, in that
for the six months of the year 1930 included in the ac-
counting period, defendant credits itself as an item. of cost
- with 1,620,151 square feet of glass at a ‘total purchase price
of $512, 776.80, and also credits itself'as an item of cost
with 954,474 square feet-of pyralin, at a total purchase
price of $189, 144.51, whereas. it charges itself with the sale
of only 1,335,072 square feet of glass and 667,536 square |
feet of pyralin, at-a total selling price of $1,073,295.76,
leaving a balance of 285,079 square feet of glass and 286, -
938 nee feet of pyralin unaccounted for. ”
.
[ - “ —o a _ 5 : *
Sis pests mn sees ces 8 RnR Tah ST Sen a PP Seah a ent - — = on ss .
, i a — ee eee ak OS 4 heed’ LT
¢ 2 \ *
38
‘‘Ninth. Plaintiff objects to the account as filed, in that.
for the years of the accounting period defendant credits
itself as an item of cost with large sums for labor, whicli
said sums were expended by the defendant in the manu-
facture of a large amount of. laminated glass that is unac-
counted for in the defendant’ s sales.
[fol.53] ‘‘Tenth. Plaintiff objects to the inclusion in the
_ cost items for the year 1928 of interest on investment in the
amount of $60,000, being interest at the rate of six per cent
per annum on $1,000,000, for the reason that the books of
the defendant company indicate that the defendant’s in-
vestment did not reach $1,000,000 until in or about the
month of October, 1928, and that in the months prior thereto
in the year 1928, the investment: ranged from $50,000 to
$700, 000. .
‘‘Hleventh. Plaintiff objects to the account as filed, and
particularly with respect to the inclusion therein as an item
of current expense of all credits representing ‘Expenses
for Experimentation,’ for the reason that all such experi-
mental expenses are properly capital expense, particularly
so in’this case in that such experimental expenses were
carried on for the purpose of developing inventions and
resulted in the development of inventions and the filing of
applications therefor, all of which is a capital investment.
‘‘Twelfth. Plaintiff objects to the account as filed, and
particularly with respect to the inclusion therein as an
item of current expense of all credits representing and en-
titled ‘Miscellaneous Patent Expenses,’ for the reasons
given in objection ‘Eleventh.’
“Thirteenth. Plaintiff objects to the account as filed, and
particularly with respect to the inclusion therein as an
item of current expense of all credits representing and en-
titled ‘Commissions paid to Pittsburgh Plate Glass Com-
pany,’ for the reason that it does not appear on the face
of the account what, if any, arrangement, contract or agree-
ment existed between the defendant and the Pittsbur gh
Plate Glass Company.
(fol. 54] - ‘‘Fourteenth. Plaintiff objects to the account as
filed, and particularly with respect to the inclusion therein
as an item of current expense of all credits representing
Sides ‘ i . *
SDR eerina TA cans de yeaa Sites
: . Kecetmoc: —— :
Se, ht: SO Ss Soak ? we engeeee
aihiitetian = a bial Sst Ma cae ET PERO RIT SSI A yen rte ——
" > Pe. ee ee TAN
‘Payments to the Mellon Institute Fellowship,’ for the
reason that it appears on'‘the face of the account that the
-amounts paid to Mellon Tnstitute Fellowship represent
gifts.
“Fifteenth. Plaintiff objects to the account as filed, and
particularly with respect to the inclusion therein as an
item of current expense of all cerdits representing ‘Ex-
penses of Triplex Patent case,’ for the reason that such ~
expense is not a-proper item of expense in a — ac-
counting.
‘‘Sixteenth. Plaintiff objects to the ntiitaiad as filed, and
particularly with respect to the inclusion therein as an
item of current expense of all credits representing ‘Ex-
traordinary Expenses,’ for the reason that the items of
expense entitled ‘Extraordinary Expenses’ represent the
cost of moving the defendant’s plant, ‘which i is in the nature °
of a capital expense.
‘*Seventeenth. Plaintiff reserves the right to file such
further objections from time to time during the hearing
as it may be advised are necessary or proper in view of the
*
testimony that may be adduced at such hearings.
Respectfully submitted, Ambrose L. O O’Shea, Coun-
sel for Plaintiff. sg
[fol. 55] C. L. McHenry, a witness produced on behalf of
the plaintiff, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. O’Shea:
Q., Mr. McHenry, you are the person who swore to de-
fendant’s statement of account before the Master?
A. T am.
- Q. Are you an = of the defendant, —— Corpor a-
tion?
_ A. I am not. ——
- Q. Will you please state just what your ecnnnattina with
-the defendant, Duplate Corporation, is?, —
A. As. auditor.
39°
. 40
Q. Auditor of Duplate Corporation?
A. Well, no; that is not exactly right. “I am auditor for
' the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, which carries my
duties to the Duplate.
Q. Just what is the connection between the Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Company and the mene Corporation?
A. Their stock holdings.
Q. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company is a stockholder of
the Duplate Corporation?
A. Duplate Corporation; yes, sir:
Q. Does it have any other stockholder beatin the Pitts-
' burgh Plate Glass Company?
A. Du Pont Company, 50 per cent.; that is all.
Q. Any other besides the du Pont Company and the
Pittsbur eh Plate Glass Company?
A. No, sir.
Q. What were the eer stockholdings of those two
corporations?
A. Fifty per cent. each. —. cit
Q. So that as the auditor of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass
_ Company, you prepared the defendant’s statement of ac-
[fol. 56] count when it was called for under the Master’s
order of the Duplate Corporation?
A. Yes, sir. ;
Q. I take it, therefore, that you are thoroughly familiar
with the books of the Duplate Corporation?
A. Yes.
-Q. And had that dennitianity before the filing of this
account?
A. Yes, sir.
Q:. When was the - Duplate Corporation uenoninedt
A. In the last—I think it was December, shout the 28th,
of 1927. It was just a few days before the beginning of
1928.
Q. Did any corporation or individuals doing business
under the name of Duplate Corporation, or any other name
that you were connected with, either directly or indirectly,
carry on any business in manufacturing or ane laminated
glass, prior to January 1, 1928?
A. No one that I was connected with.
Q. Did the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, make or sell
laminated glass prior to J anuary 1, 1928?
A. No, sir.
idacaphnetaeere ho een menceres ange
BETES ae REI Se EOP ate eer oe a 2 ats Noe are 36 Fae ees
Se Lt Le a eee Se oe eee ae —
41
Q. Now, in the early part of 1928, after the incorpora-
tion of the defendant company, did the defendant company
have a uniform price which it charged to all customers?
A. For the sale of Duplate——
Q. For the sale of laminated glass.
A. The price was not uniform; it varied considerably.
Q. And what were those variations dependent upon?
A. On the quality of the product and the amount of edge
work, ,
Q. Anything else? |
A. That is all I can think of now. |
(fol. 57] Q:. What were the differentiations in quality ?.
A. As to the quality of glass and pyralin which it was
necessary to use in order to produce the product that the
customer required.
Q. Now, referring to the quality of the glass, how many
different qualities did the Duplate Corporation have in the
early part of 1928? ,
A. I believe they. had ‘some silvering quality, glazing
quality, window glass, and heavy polished plate. -
Q. Is there a distinction between glazing quality and
window glass, in the glass trade?
A. Oh, yes. It is made under a different process. Glaz-
ing quality of plate glass—when I speak of glazing quality,
that is plate glass. )
Q. Window glass is commonly known in the trade as sheet
glass, is it not?
_ A. It is known under that name. °- |
Q. And the other qualities are known as plate glass?
A. Yes, plate glass. . |
Q. And how many different qualities were there under
the plate glass heading?
A. Two—silvering and glazing. I would also say that
the difference of the bracket of the glass that was used
would ‘affect the cost. .
Q. What do you mean by ‘‘bracket’’?__
A. Difference in the size of the glass.
Q. Is that trne both of plate glass and sheet glass?
A. It is.
Q. Now, you spoke also as to difference as to edge work.
That really applies to both plate. and sheet? |
Yes.
Q. And is really an additional operation on the glass?
“Ling,
ORR AG eS LE AS, DR dM hd x
A. It is the finishing of the edges, making it fit for use.
ffol.-58] Q. Of course, some vue was sold without the
edge work?
A. It was.
Q. And still it was fit for use?
A. Well,sit had to be cut and edged wkoee it could be
used.
@. Well, just what does edging mean, in he trade?
. It is putting on either: a rough or smooth or finished
PP on the piece that is to be used.
Q. -You mean on the laminated piece?
A. Yes; laminated or unlaminated.
Q. Well, of course, we are directing our attention in this
examination to laminated.
A. That applies to laminated.
Q. So in the future when we are talking of Siek in this
examination, let us take it for granted that we are discuss-
ing laminated glass, unless the question asks for some in-
formation with respect to glass generally or specifically.
- A. Fea, ae.
Q. Is it not possible to use glass without having this.
edge work on it?
A. It is, and it is used in the rear lights of automobiles.
Q. As a general etom, is it not true that the Duplate
Corporation sold its@lags at a particular price, and then
an additional price for the edge work that was put on the
laminated glass?
A. On one order that happened, with the Fisher Body
Company. .
Q. Is that the only order?
A. That is the only large order. There may have been
small orders that were filled, so much per foot for the glass,
and so much per inch or foot for the edge work. The ma-
jority of sales are made so much per plate or per foot,
Q. Without any additional charge for—
[fol.59] A. That price includes the edge work cost.
,Q. That price included the edge work cost, paceci in the
case of the Fisher Body? .
A. The Fisher Boay was the large order that was iendied
the other way.
Q. Did your differentiation in prices * between different
customers have any relation to the MM of transportation ©
of the glass? .
ice iS ess Casa Sie MIS SOR A AN nt GARE Oe Sele ee dE soa GR ME dase shite
A. I could not answer that. ,
-Q. You mean by that that you don’t know?
A. I don’t know. That would be the salé& department's
operations.
Q. And who in the sales department?
A. Mr. Judson. : ;
Q. May I take it for granted that with respect to all mat-
_ ters relating to sales, that the man who would have the in-
formation on that point would be Mr. Judson?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is Mr. Judson an oilicer of the Duplate Corporation?
A. No, sir. e.
Q. Is he an employee of the Duplate Corposxation?
A. No. He is Pittsburgh Plate Glass Compamy entirely.
Q. Is he an officer of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Com:
pany? | 7 |
A. No, not to my knowledge. .
- Q. He is an employe of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Com-’
pany?
A. Yes, sir; sales manager. “a
Q. And what is his title in the Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Company? © ; : .
_ A. Sales manager. |
Q..Fronr whom did Duplate purchase its glass?
A. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, practically—that
~ is, all the plate glass. It may have purchased window glass
-[fol. 60] outside the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company.
- Q. But its main purchases of glass were from the Pitts-
burgh Plate Glass Company?
A. Yes, sir: | . Te
Q. And do you know whether the Duplate Corporation
received any preferential price over the market for the glass
which it purchased from the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Com-
pany?.
A. J understand it purchased it at the market price, less
10 per cent.; that is, the price to other customers. Ten per
cent. lower-than outside trade would be the proper way to
put that. There may. be a standard list with the standard
10 per cent. on it; the Duplate Corporation would get an-
other 10 per cent. below the other customers.
- Q. So that customers other than Duplate Corporation
were considered as outside customers? :
A. Yes, sir.
MS URE Me SEAR ish dati ee
'
440C‘ | a
\
Q. And Duplate Corporation was considered as having
some relation to the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company?
A. Well, they received the benefit of that lower purchase
price.
Q. But you considered the others as being outside cus-
tomers? .
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who were the officers of Duplate Corporation in or
about January, 1928?
A. Mr. Hl. S. Wherrett—I am not familiar enough with
that to give you the title or just who are all the officers. Mr.
Wherrett, as I recall it, was president ; Mr. Davis, Mr. Doyle
was treasurer, and Mr. Pitcairn assistant treastrer.
Q. But before that, the defendant in this case was origi-
nally incorporated under the name of Pittsburgh Safety
_Glass Company, was it not?
[fol.61] <A. Yes, sir, it was.
Q. And some time later changed its name to Duplate Cor
poration? ,
A. Yog, sir
Q. Do you know just when that change took place?
A. About the spring of 1929.
Q. Now, as I understand you, you stated that Mr. H.-S.
Wherrett was an officer of the Duplate Corporation in or
about the early part of 1928?
A. He was the president of the Pittsburgh Safety Glass
Company, and I also understand president of the Duplate
Corporation.
Q. You think he was also president of the Duplate Cor-
poration?
A. Yes. a,
Q. Do you know a man named F. D. Davis, Jr.?
A. No, sir.
Q. You don’t know whether he was chairman of the Board
of the Pittsburgh Safety | Glass Company?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you know a man named R. L. Clause?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was he an "officer of the Pittsburgh Safety Glass Com-
pany in the early part of 19287
A. He is now, and he probably was then, but as to his
title—I don’t know.
ee ee wee eee
45
| 4
Q. Is it possible for you to find out that fact from your
records?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you do so and let us know?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Whether he was an officer of the Pittsburgh Safety
Glass Company at that time, and if so, what officer ?
A.. Yes, sir. :
Q. But you do know that he was at that time vice-presi-
dent of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company?
(fol.62] A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know a man named H. B. Higgins?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was he an officer of Pittsburgh Safety Glass Com
pany, in or about the early part of 1928?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Will you endeavor to ascertain that fact for us?
A. I will.
@. Ando you know whether er not Mr. H. B. Higgins
was an Officer of the Pittsburgi: Plate Glass Company at or
about that time? \ ae
A. He was vice-president. ay
Q. Of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company?
A. Yes. .
Q. Do you know a man by the name of R. W. Reisinger?
A. I do not. 7
Q. There was no man by that name an officer or director
of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company at that time?
A. No,sir. ~*~
Q. Do you know who the d
irectors were of the Pittsburgh
Safety Glass Company, in or about the early part of 1928?
. I do not.
Will you endeavor to ascertain that fact also?
. I will. |
Do you know a man named Clarence M. Brown?
I do.
Is he alive?
Yes.
. Was Clarence M. Brown an officer or director of the
Pittsburgh Safety Glass Company in the early part of
OP>OPO>OD
1928?
A. I don’t know.
~ y oe ee ee ee ee a tt _ a
ETE IF AOS 8 BRETT He TELE ROLL PETE EN SR Bi OER
? .
ee ee tek Pee
; is
Snel Sk at Se ab .
46
Q. Was_ he inenatiads as an officer or dir ector of the
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company at that time?
[fol.63] A. He was vice-president.
Q. Do you know a man named C. K.' Davis?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you know a man named D. W. Doyle?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was he an officer or director of the Pittsburgh Safety
Glass Company, én the early part of 1928?
A. He was not.
Q. Is:he an officer or director now? |
A. No. He is in Italy at the present time. He was treas- ©: .
urer, I believe, in the years 1929 and 1930, or maybe just in
1930.
Q. That is, treasurer of Pittsburgh Safety Glass Com-
pany?
A. Yes.
Q. In either both or one of the years 1929 or 1930?
A. Yes. Mr. McBride was treasurer in the year 1928.
Q. Was Mr. McBride an officer of the Pittsburgh ,Plate
Glass Company?
A. No, sir.
Q. Or an employee of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Com-
pany? ©
- A. No.
Q. When you obtain the information, Mr. McHenry, with
respect to who were the officers and dir ectors of Pittsbur gh
Safety Glass Company, and particularly those whose names
you have jotted down, will you also ascertain whether they
continue up to the present time, and if not, let us have such
changes as were made up to the end of the accounting
period?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, it is a fact, is it not, that in or about 1931, the
Pittsburgh Plate Glass | Company purchased all of the in-
terest of du Pont Company?
Mr. Christy: Object to the question as immaterial, in that
it relates to a time subsequent to the termination -of the
[fol. 64] accounting period in this case.
Mr. O’Shea: Mr. Master, I think it is material, for the
reason this case is still progressing, and it is of vital im-
portance to determine just what the present ‘status of this
.Duplate Corporation is. I think it is going to be very
\
~
“Se <=>
Porenttsg sete Teens SAG 2 aT ADAP Rite Th eek PE Sed Sgn
eee “
aT
material for us hitises. the end of this accounting, and, as
a mat-er of fact, I think it is more or less a matter of public
record now.
‘The Master: Objection overruled. t
A. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company purchased all the
interest, but I am not sure’ as to the date.
Q. Well, in any event, at the present time the Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Company is the sole stockholder of Duplate
Corporation?
A. Yes, sir. -
Q. Now, Mr. McHenry, in the early part of 1928, where
was the corporation, then known as Pittsbur gh Safety Glass
Company, located ?-
A. At the upper end of Works No. 1, on the property
of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, and i in their build-
ing.
Q. You mean by “Works No. 1’’ a plant or works of
the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company?
A. It is the Creighton factory.
Q. And at that period then, the factory of the Pittsburgh
. Safety Glass Company occupied the same pr emises as Pitts-
_ burgh Plate Glass Company?
A. Yes, sir. if
Q. And was operating in a plant of-the Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Company?
A. Yes, operating in one of our buildings.
Q. And ‘four buildings’’ means Pittsburgh Plate Glass ”
Company?
A. Pittsburgh Plate Glia Company, yes.
[fol.65] Q. And how long did it continue operating in
that building? .
Until about February, 1929.
Did it.move at that time?
. It moved to its own building.
And where was that building located?
It stayed on Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company’s prop-
At Creighton also?
. At Creighton.
Q. In 1928, when the Pittsburgh Safety Glass Company
was occupying and operating in one of the plants of the
silanes 9 Plate Glass Company, did it pay rent?
A. It did not, for the factory building it was operating in.
cretrerers
°
48
Q. Has either the Pittsburgh Safety Giass Company or
its successor in name, Duplate Corporation, paid rent to
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company for any of the buildings
it occupied?
A. It has paid rent, I believe, in the year 1929, for stor-
age space that they took or used in the Creighton factor y.
Q. That is the only rent it ever——
A. And they paid rent for an office building.
Q. And office building?
A. An office building.
Q. Did it have an office building at Creighton?
A. When it was operating at the first plant, they rented
an office building of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company.
It was a very small building—office space.
Q. At Creighton?
A. Yes.
Q. When it built its factory i in or about the early part of
1929, did it own the ground on which it built the factory?
[ fol. 66] A. It did not. .
Q. Who was the owner of that land?
A. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company.
@. Going back again to the early part of 1928, and
through that year, where were the general books of account
of the defendant, then known as Pitisburgh Safety Glass
Company, kept?
A.-In the general office of.the Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Company.
Q. And where is that located?
A. In the Grant Building, Pittsburgh.
Q. And are we to understand from that that the corpo-
ration then known as Pittsburgh Safety Glass Company
maintained its general offices in the space occupied by
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company?
A. There was only one office occupied by the Duplate or
Safety Glass employees, which was Mr. Penning’s, the
manager of the plant.
Q. One office in the offices of Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Company?
A. Yes.
Q. In the Grant Building, in Pittsburgh?
A. Yes. In 1928, we were in the Frick Building.
Q. When you say ‘‘we’’, you mean the Pittsburgh Plate °
Glass Company?
A. Yes.
hs
49
. Q. Did PittsburghNafety Glass Company pay rent to the
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company for that one office of Pitts-
burgh Plate Glass Company?
A. It did, after we moved to the Grant Building, where
they occupied a separate room. a.
Q. When did you move to the Grant Building, approxi-
mately? ) .
A. March, 1929.
Q. So that all during the year 1928, the Pittsburgh Safety
Glass‘ Company paid no rent to Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Company for the office which it occupied in the offices of
(fol. 67] Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company?
‘A. Not to my knowledge.
©. How many employees were in the room occupied by
the Pittsburgh Safety Glass Company?
A. In 1928? *
Q. In-1928.
A. Three employees in the board room.
Q. Well, the board room is the room where? .
A. Where Mr. Penning had his desk.
Q. Which the Pittsburgh Safety Glass Company oe-
cupied as its accounting department, shall we say?
A. No; Mr. Penning was the manager.
(). Manager of what?
A. Safety Glass. - oe he
Q. Mr. Penning was manager of the Safety Glass Com-
pany and was an employee of the Pittsburgh Safety Glass
Company? .
A. Yes. *
Q. And received his salary from the Pittsburgh Safety
Glass Company?
A. Yes. |
Q. Had he any connection at all with the Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Company? .
A. Not at all. | |
Q. The other three accountants or bookkeepers, were
they all.employees of the Pittsburgh Safety Glass Com-
pany? .
A. Of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company.
Q. ghey were employees of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Company?
A. Yes.
4—767-768
RB A PGRN GRA RS ihn
| ae dey: noua
Q. They received their salaries from the Pittsburgh Plate
. Glass Company? .
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Throughout this year 1928?
A. Yes, sir.
[fol.68] Q. Did you. do any work on the books of the
Pittsburgh Safety Glass Company during the year 1928?
A. I did.
Q. What was the character of the work which you did?
A. Instrugtions to the factory accountant.
Q. And where was the factory accountant located?
A. At Creighton.
. Did you receive arty part of your salary from the
Pittsburgh Safety Glass Company?
' A. No, sir.
¢Q. For the work which you did for it?
A. Not in 1928.
Q..Did you audit’ the books of the Pittsburgh Safety
ec. Company for - year 1928?
A. Yes, sir. ©
Q. You did that as an employee of Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Company?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. ‘Where were the records of hates accounts kept in
the year 1928?
A. At the factory.
Q. By an employee of the ica zh Safety Glass Com-
pany?’ ,
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who determined the policya@nd amount of depretia-
tion and obsolescence in the year 1928?
A. Mr. Penning and Mr. Spahr, in conference with the
directors.
Q. Who is Mr. Spahr?
A. Assistant comptroller.
Q. Assistant comptroller of what?
A. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company.
Q.. Those two were in conference with the directors of
which company?
A. Of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass einen. and they’
may have:consulted the directors of the Pittsburgh S: ifety
[fol. 69] Glass Company from Arlington—Mr. Davis.
ma Where is Arlington?
A. Arlington, New Jersey.
P , 51
Q. You made none of the entries in the general books of
account of the Pittsburgh Safety Glass Company or the
Duplate?
A. No, sir. :
Q. You simply audited such entries as were found tliere?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall aa account on the general ledger ‘of
Pittsburgh Safety Glass Company, and carried through
into the books of the corporation of the changed name,
‘‘Duplate Corporation,’’ entitled ‘‘E. A. Pitcairn, Treas-
urer’s Account’’? . .
A. That account should be there, although he is assistant
treasurer, not treasurer.
Q. That account should be where?
A. In the Duplate’s books.
Q. The general ledger of the Pittsburgh Safety and ‘Du-
plate books?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You say E. A. Pitcairn is assistant treasurer?
A. Yes.
Q. Of what?
A. The Duplate Corporation.
Q. And was assistant treasurer of Pittsburgh Safety
Glass Company?
A. Yes.
Q. Did E. A. Pitcairn have any connection with the Pitts-
burgh Plate Glass Company?
A. He was treasurer. |
Q. He was treasurer of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company
also?
A. Yes. |
[fol.70] Q. And assistant treasurer of Pittsburgh Safety,
Glass Company and Duplate Corporation?
A. Yes, sir. ’
_ _Q. Who was the treasurer of Pittsburgh Safety Glass
Company?
A. Mr. McBride.
Q. In 1928?°
A. Yes. | :
Q. Did he remain treasurer up until June, 1930, do you
know? . ,
A. No; Mr. Doyle took his place. I don’t recall the date.
Q. Did Mr. McBride have anything to do with the Pitts-
burgh Plate Glass Company?
~
.
$a atl
DDisiniipiscsinct es. Leah isihied Pech Fak Ly og
; .
5Q .
A. No, sir. |
Q. He was solely an officer and employee, I assuine also;
'. of the Pittsburgh Safety Glass Company?
A. Ye8; a du Pont employee. | ‘i
Q. He was a du Pont ment
_ A. Yes. . :
Q. Did he receive any compensation for his services, as
treasurer?
-A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Did Mr. Doyle receive any compensation for his serv-
ices as treasurer?
_ A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Did Mr. E. A. Pitcairn receive any compensation for
his services as assistant treasurer of Pittsburgh Safety
Glass Company and Duplate Corporation?
A. No, sir.
Q. I understood you to say, Mr. McHenry, that Pitts-
burgh Safety Glass Company had no sales manager?
A. Their sales were handled by—sold‘to the Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Company. The product was sold to the Pitts-
burgh Plate Glass Company. .
[fol. 71) Q.-You mean by that, don’t you, that the Pitts-
*
burgh Plate Glass Company sold all the product of Pitts-
burg Safety Glass Company to the consumers, like auto-
mobile manufacturers, automobile body builders, jobbers
A. Who sold it, did you say?
Q. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company.
A. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company did.
Q. What was the system used by the Pittsburgh Safety
Glass Company, and later the Duplate Corporation, i in mak-
ing purchases of raw material and supplies?
A. They were requisitioned by the plant manager and
purchased through the Pittsburgh office—the Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Company.
Q. Am I correct in stating, then, that the system followed
somewhat as follows: that the plant manager made a requi-
sition for his supplies of raw material to the Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Company, and that thereafter the Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Company placed thé orders with the suppliers
of raw material?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is true of what i is ordinarily referred to both as
raw material and supplies?
a
- - 2 53
. A. Yes, sir.
Q. It is true; is it not, that all glass, excepting odd in-
stances, was purchased from Pittsburgh Plate Glass Com-
pany? a A ,
A. It is. | ; , | |
Q. And that all pyralin, except possibly in odd instances,
also was purchased frém du Pont Viscoloid Company? .
A. It is. , .
Q. Now, what was the system or plan of selling the prod-
uct of the Pittsburgh Safety Glass. Company, afterwards
known as Duplate Corporation? a
[fol. 72] A. An invoice was rendered by the Safety Glass
Company and Duplate Corporation to the Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Company. |
Q. Can we start back from the consumer and trace it back
to Pittsburgh Safety? _ | |
A. The Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company’s sales depart-
ment would secure an order, say, from Fisher Body, Com-
pany ; that.order would be placed with the Duplate Corpo-
ration, to manufacture certain size and glass to pattern.
Q. Was there some document transmitted from Pitts-
burgh Plate to Pittsburgh Safety? _
A. Yes, there would be a copy of the order made up.
Q. That is to say, a copy from the ultimate consumer, as
Fisher Body Company, would be made up by Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Company and turned over to Pittsburgh Safety
Glass Company or Duplate?
A. Yes; to make up certain glass according to the pattern
that the order called for. Then when the glass is shipped
an invoice is made out by the Safety Glass Company or
the Duplate Corporation against the Fisher Body Company,
and if the sales price is. $1.75, they mark it on the invoice
‘$1.75,”’ and from that bill from the Duplate Corporation,
an invoice is made out by the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Com-
pany to-the Fisher Body Company, at $1.75; as specified on
the original order. The Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company
pays Duplate Corporation $1.75, less their commission, say’
of 3 per cent. . Seta
Q. I didn’t quite understand, Mr. McHenry. I under-
stood you to say that Pittsburgh Safety, afterwards Dup-
late invoiced directly to the ‘consumer, as Fisher Body
Company? é,
’ ' os
2 GS SPER TI LAT SERA Se ee ee Cieeemnene oe A :
oe
a en
Se Oe en
Sean eRe eee Re ee aT ee eT
3 .
ae iP aos Mian Sibi tina Bhi pte iee oaks Prd Saad Se hele ae
ae
“eg
54
an
A. They specify on that bill whether it is for Fisher Body
Company.
|fol. 73] Q. Is this what you mean: Pittsburgh Safety, or
Duplate, would make up an invoice, on which would be
stated that the glass included ir that invoice was for Fisher
Body, or Smith, or Jones?
A. Yes.
Q. But that that invoice would not go to Fisher Body,
Smith, or Jones?
A. No, it does not.
Q. Where would that invoice go?
A. That comes to the Pittsburgh office.
Q. You mean by Pittsburgh office——
A. The Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company's office. It is
our understanding that we make all tlie sales. That’ saves
us work in making a regular bill from the Duplate Corpora-
tion to Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, and then from the
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company to the consumer. We use
this original bill that comes from the Duplate factory, to
tell us that this shipment goes to Fisher Body. That serves
as our original invoice, which is kept in our files - ‘in the
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company. .
Q. This invoice from Pittsburgh Safety Glass C ompany,
or Duplate Corporation, is that the invoice that is usdally
known in your organization as the ‘‘pink slip’’?
A. Yes, it is. :
Q. Well, was not the sole purpose of that pink yip whieh
you have referred to in your testimony as an invoice from
Duplate or Safety Glass to the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Com-
pany, to acquaint Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company with the
fact only that certain shipments had been made to certain
customers, and that with that information, to wit, that ship- _
ment had been made, to acquaint the Pittsburgh Plate Glass .
Company further withthe fact that it was time thén to bil!
the customer, such as Fisher Body, Smith or Jones?
{fol. 74] A. No, that would put it on a basis of a shipping
record. It is really the original invoice that is retain 1 in
our office as such.
Q. Invoice from whom to whom?
A. From the Duplate Corporation to Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Company. Also, it serves from we Plate
Glass Company to the consumer.
° b>
et a
: 55
Q. Was a copy of that, what I refer to as the pink slip,
and which you have referred to as the Duplate invoice to
Pittsburgh Plate, retained by Safety Glass, or later Duplate
Corporation ?
A. They have a copy of each one. +
Q. They kept a copy of each one?
A. Yes.
Q. At the end of each month, did not Pittsburgh Plate
’ Glass Company use the pink slips | for the purpose ef mak-
ing up a summary of the shipments made during that
month?
A. We did.
Q. And what was the purpose of that summary?!
A. To get our cost, what we were to pay Duplate for the
goods we purchased from them.
Q. To get your cost?
A. Yes. ,
-Q. You mean by that to determine simply how much you
owed Duplate since your cost was merely what Diplate or
Safety Glass charged Pittsburgh Plate?
A. Plus 3 per cent.
Q. The purpose of the summary from the pink slips was
to enable you to determine only how much commission you
were entitled to during that month, for the goods shipped it in
* that month by Duplate or Safety Glass?
- Yes. We used it for that purpose.
QQ. And was there any other purpose in that summariza-
tion of the pink slips?
[fol.75]' A. Well, it would’give us the total sales of Du-
plate for that month and the commission earned.
Q. Well, wouldn’t it have been possible for you to have
summarized your own orders received from the customers,
to obtain the*same information?
A. No; because we might not have posted to that order
the amount of goods shipped during that month from the
Pittsburgh office. >
Q. So that the main purpose of the pink slip, then, was.
to inform you of the amount of oe shipped during that
month by Duplate?
A. Well, it served as our original invoice.
Q. It is true it served as your original invoice, but it also
served, didn’t it, to acquaint you with the fact that so much
2 > “ee * ga * _
DF
footage had been shipped to various customers during the
month by Safety Glass Company or Duplate?
A. Yes.
Q. Are these pink slips available sale one binder?
A. A certain portion would be. A portion of a month or
maybe two months in one volume.
Q. Are they in binders seattered through other sales of
Pittsburgh Plate?
A. No; kept separate.
Q. All kept separate. —
A. Yes..
Q. Now, it is.a fact, is it not, Mr. McHenry, that in some
“—___instances, at J€ast, it was the policy of the Pittsburgh Plate
a any to grant a rebate to some of its customers.
I use the word ‘‘rebate,’’ because that is the only way I
know how to specify it. What I mean by it is that the, in-
voice to the customer would specify a particular rate. per
foot and that subsequently Pittsburgh Plate Glass Com-
pany would forego some percentage or some amount of that
invoiced price?
[fol.76] A. Yes, sir; that is true.
Q. And that that policy was acquiesced in by the Pitts-
burgh Safety Glass Company and Duplate Corporation, to
the extent that these rebates or allowances were charged
back against Pittsburgh Safety Glass Compaay, or Duplate
Corporation ? e
A. Yes, sir. | .
Q. How was the amount of those rebates or allowancés
determined upon, and by whom?
A. Well, we would have a contract, say with Fisher Body,
for glass, at $2. 00.a i) ee ee
————--——. When you say ‘‘we,’’ you mean Pittsburgh Plate
‘ Glass Company?
A. Yes, Pittsburgh Plate; and they would have some
bodies built by Fleetwood, for, say, Cadillac cars. We
would bill Fleetwood at $9.50 a foot, so that they would not
know what Fisher Body was paying us for the glass. Later
on, we would rebate fifty cents a foot to the Fisher Body
Company, because Fleetwood—we -charged that back to
them at $2.50, and we would have to abide by our contract
that we would furnish their glass for $2.00 a foot—the glass
that was used in their cars.
o7
(). Now, the determination of whether that rebate should
be fifty’ cents or ten cents rested solely in Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Company?
A. It rested solely on the original contract with the pur-
chaser.
Q. Which was made between Pittsburgh Plate Glass Cori-
pany and the customer?
A. Yes, the consumer.
Q. And who, in Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, deter-
—, what rebate would be given?
. Mr. Judson.
s And yet when you came to pay the Safety Glass Com-
pany or Duplate for the goods shipped for any particular
month, you deducted from your payment to Duplate the
[fol. 77] amount of these rebates or allowances? Is that
the fact?
A. We deducted from them the amount after taking off
what commission we made on that shipment.
(). I mean, laying aside the question of commissions due
Pittsburgh Plate, it is a fact that you charged back, or de-
ducted from the invoice price which appeared on the pink
slip from Pittsburgh Safety to Pittsburgh Plate, any re-
bates that had been allowed by Mr. Judson?
A. Yes, sir.
Q: Were. there no instances where such rebates were al-
lowed on orders that came directly from the user of the
glass?
A. Not to my knowledge. That is for a _price adjust-
ment,
Q. “Do you distinguish between what you now refer
____ a price adjustment-and what you have previously kdened
to as a rebate?
A. Well, this that we mentioned here is a rebate or price
adjustment.
Q. Yes; but my question was whether there were no in-:
stances where such rebate or price adjustment was allowed
to the user directly, even on purchases that were made di-
rect?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Is it a fact that shipments made by Pittsburgh Safety
Glass, later Duplate Corporation, were boxed—that. is,
the glass was boxed—did the invoices or pink slips charge
Pittsburgh Plate with that boxing cost?
|
NEE ROORTA NT DEINE Ber Eryn NN aR oe ites oH on xe es
.
a dhienataeieidaat nee Saat DUI O ESOL NSA AAR AE QQ SI St tibiae OO
08
A. Yes. There were some sales where boxing was
charged to the customer, and it was not credited to the.
Duplate Corporation.
Q. Was that an oversight or the policy?
A. That was the intention at that time.
Q. That was the policy?
A. Yes. P
[fol. 78] Q. In other words, while Safety Glass Company
furnished the material and did the labor of boxing, it did
not charge for that material or labor?
A. No.
Q. But that in some instances, at least, Pittsburgh Plate
did charge an amount for material and labor in boxing to
the customer, and that the amount received by Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Company for that material and labor was not
credited to Pittsburgh Safety Glass Company or Duplate
Corporation?
A. That is true. .
Q. And that was done because of an agreement between
Pittsburgh Safety, afterwards known as Duplate, and Pitts-
burgh Plate Glass Company?
A. Yes.
Q. Were these various agreements with respect to com-
missions and any other items of charges contained in any
written agreement between Duplate or Safety Glass Com-
pany and Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company?
A. I can’t answer that. The matters were usualy taken
up by Mr. Spahr or Mr. Wherrett, or someone else in au-
thority. Whether there was anything written on this I
can’t say.
Q. How would we find that out, as to whether there was
anything?
A. By inguiring of Mr. Spahr.
Q. Will you ask Mr. Spahr whether there was any writ-
ten agreement made between Pittsburgh: Safety. and Pitts-
burgh Plate, with respect to commissions or any other mat-
ters relating to charges to be made against either or both
of those parties, and if there were such written agreement,
T would like to have it produeed.
A. Yes.
(Recess until 1:30 o’clock P. M.)
BRIS atin nee TRS Ret Mk AS TE Gee
[fol. 79] Afternoon Sessipn
C. L. McHenry, remmmine the stand:
Direct examination ( continued).
By Mr. O’Shea:
@. Mr. McHenry, have you got the names of the officers
and directors of the Pittsburgh Safety Glass ‘Company as
of the early part of 1928?
A. I have.
Q. Will you state first the names of the officers, and then
the names of the directors?
A. Mr. F. B. Davis, Jr., cnairman of the board; Mr. H. S. '
Wherrett, president; Mr. R. L. Clause, vice-president and- :
general manager; Mr. H. B. Higgins, secretary; Mr. W. U. ‘
Reissinger, treasurer; Mr. EB. A. Howard, assistant secre- A
tary; Mr. Edward Pitcairn, assistant treasurer; Mr. Clar- e
ence M. Brown, H. S. Wherrett, Robert L. Clause, Harry i
lliggins, F. B. Davis, Jr., W. U. Reissinger. Now, there 3
is a change made here throughout the year. Mr. Reissinger ;
was taken off on May 5, 1928, and was replaced by A. E.
—
Pitcher, and F. B. Davis, Jr., was taken off, and F. W.
Pickard was put in his place, but I don’t have the date.
Then Mr. McBride was treasurer to May 1, 1928, and he
was replaced by Mr_ Deyle—Mr-Reissinger was treasurer §
to 0/28, and he was replaced by Mr. McBride, and after Mr. ;
McBride was Mr. Doyle, and after Mr. Doyle was Mr. Gar- .
land—B. R.. Garland. : | ;
Q. You don’t know the date? t
A. No. I have the exact date the corporation chaneed '
its name to Duplate. E
().. What was that?
A. That was March 8, 1929, changed from Pittsburgh |
Safety Glass Company to Duplate Corporation; was certi-
fied at Harrisburg March 25, 1929. .
- Q. Was F. B. Davis, Jr., connected in any way with the
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company?
[fol.80] <A. No.
Q. Was Mr. Pitcher connected in any way with the Pitts-
burgh Plate Glass Company?
A. No, sir.
ss aa ’ oe a
60
Q. Was he connected 1 in any way with du Pont Viscoloid
Company?
A. He is.
af: Q. Was and is?
/ A. Yes.
Q. Was Mr. Pickard connected in any way at that time
with Pittsburgh Plate?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was he connected also with du Pont Viscoloid?
A. Yes.
~ Q. Was Mr. Garland connected in any way with Pitts-
burgh Plate?
A. No, sir. ;
(). Was he connected in any way with du Pont Vi8scoloid?
\. Yes, he was.
-
* * * * + “
Q. The warehouses are a part or department of the Pitts-
_burgh Plate Glass Company?
A. They are the selling agents.
(). Selling agents in the various localities throughout the
+ country, and might be described as the Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Company’ s distributors?
oe A. Yes, sir. i
___4+—_——E_Kind the eonal custom, I suppose, in taking the orders,
is these warehouses or distributors take the order direct
from the customer in their territory. Is that correct? .
A. That is true.
Q. And then having received an order from a customer
in their respective territories, they make out one of these
series forms?
[fol.81] <A. Yes, sir.
(). So that the pink slip originates in the warehouse?
‘. Where the warehouse makes the sale, yes.
~ (. Now, the other sales are sales made direct from
Pittsbur gh’ s home office to large — Is that the
fact? |
A, Yes, sir.
J. The home office not handling the smaller customers,
or customers having smaller orders?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is about the general plan of the lea: of this
glass?
A. Yes, sir.
* * ‘ ~ # « # =
inl eal ne 82 eh i CAPD ECC nin teSine Beta BT ae he
’ . 61
Q. Who, in the Duplate Corporation, responded to re-
quests for eredit information?
A. Well, there is no one in the Duplate Corporation, as
far as I know, because all sales are made to the Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Company. — .
@. What has the connection between sales to the Pitts-
burgh Plate Glass Company got to do with the cyedit in-
formation? Credit information would be questions for the
purpose of advising the sellers of material to Duplate Cor-
poration.
A. You mean sales to or sales from Duplate?
Q. I understood you to use the word “‘to,’’? and yet you
say there was no one in the Duplate Corporation who gave
credit information when it was requested, because all sales
were made to Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company ?:
A. That is true.
Q. You mean, all sales of raw material and supplies were
made to Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company?
A. All sales of the product of Duplate are made to Pitts-
burgh Plate Glass Company. Any local sales, say of scrap
[fol. 82] machinery, sold from Duplate, _ the credit would-be
~< carries the title of assistant
passed on by \
“treasurer.
Q. I haven’t in my mind credit from Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Company or Duplate to the customer. I have in mind
eredit to Duplate. It is not unusual, is it, that in merean-
tile arrangements or procedure that a mercantile agency,
such as Bradstreet’s, comes to a corporation and asks for
information with respect to the particular company’s stand-
ing, so as to report to people from whom they are asking
credit. ‘The credit I have in mind is the credit which is
given to Duplate Corporation, and what I want to know is,
who in the Duplate Corporation answered these mercantile
agencies when they requested information with respect to
Duplate Corporation?
A. That would be answered by Mr. Spahr, the assistant
comptroller of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company.
Q. Pittsburgh Safety Glass Company, or Duplate, pur-
chased all of its glass from Pittsburgh Plate Glass Com-
pany, or substantially all of it?
A. Substantially all of it. .
Q. And it is the custom in the glass trade, is it not, to
purchase glass in standard sizes?
A. It is.
|
2
PR AY Te PEER PIS ONT LO TID Oi NEE
62
Q. And similarly the Duplate Corporation invoiced to
its customers and Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company invoiced
to its customers, laminated glass in the same standard sizes.
- Isn’t that correct?
A. The billing price is based on the standard size it is
2 ~eut from. For instance, a windshield has a contour taken
out, but in billing, charging the customer, the over size
is used.
Q. So that in a purchase of a windshield which is sts-
ceptible of being cut from a sheet of glass 20 by 30—that
~4#s the standard size? , «
{[fol.83] A. Yes. .
Q. Duplate would use .a 20 by 30 standard size sheet
of glass, and charge the customer at the rate—so much per
foot for a piece’of glass 20 by 30. Is that correct?
A. There is always some-allowance made for edging.
J Q. That is an additional charge.
Bistisiircscns. Mee PEI IE 8 agi,
_A. If the finished windshield was to he 20 by 30, they
would have to have half an inch, in order to get their edge
work on before it was down to the finished size of 20 by 30.
Q. But that edge work is charged additional to the
standard stock’size of glass?
_A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that under that system of purchasing glass and
selling laminated glass, there is no material loss?
A. It is very small.
Q. Now, in your defendant’s statement of account, I no-
tice that you have charged as an intem of'cost some 3,722,-
601 feet, for the year 1928, for which your account states
that you paid $1 514,254.75 ; whereas, you have credited
yourself with sales amounting to 962,448 feet, and 3 inches,
which consists of two sheets of glass of the same size, so
that that would make 1,924,896 feet of single sheets of
,glass, leaving a balance of 1,798,705 feet of glass unac-
counted for in this defendant’s statement of account. Do
you know what.the explanation is of that discrepancy?
A. We show on our December balanee sheet that we
have glass in process $41,083.66; finished glass in stock
of $162,282.47.
Q. Have you got your so-called Schedule ‘J’? here for
the year 1928? ,
A. No.
Q. Well, now, you have accounted for the inventory at
the end of the year, Mr. McHenry, but that obviously does
63
(fol. 84] not account for the whole 1,798,705 square feet of
glass, does it?
A. No, it wouldn’t, because there is a shrinkage through-
out the process of manufacturing. I have Schedules ‘‘J”’
for each month of the year 1928.
Q. You have those? |
A. Yes, for each month of. the yeer 1928. Here is an-
other item that would also account for where the glass got
to. There is a loss in stock of Duplate of $41,826.01, and
loss in stock of polished plate of $50,131.98. ;
Q. Will you turn to the month of September? Get out
Schedule ‘‘J’’ for the month of September.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What are these Schedules “‘J”’ that you have?
A. They are abstracts of the stock and departmental
accounts. ————— ae
--———Q--They constitute a record of your cost department
of ‘your costs? ¢
A. Yes, sir. :
Q. And they were kept from the beginning of the pro-
duction of laminated glass by Pittsburgh Safety Glass
‘Company?
A. Yes, sir. . |
Q. And you have one for each month down to the end
of the accounting period?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, in this month of September, I notice an item °
here called ‘‘Order cutting (1/1 to 1st current mo.) &
stock loss (ecurrent),’”’ and opposite that is the figure 92,-
038, which figures appear under the column headed
‘‘Feet’’. Does that mean that during the month of Sep-
tember you suffered a stock loss in plate glass of that
much feet?
A. The records would indicate that there was a loss in
September of 92,038 feet.
Q. Do you know how that came about?
[fol. 85] A. No, I am not prepared to Say just liow it came
about. “
Q. Will you be able to define any of the so-called losses
and explain them, that appear on those Schedules “J”, of
your own knowledge? e
A. Of the loss in stock, as indicated by this entry here,
covered by 92,038 feet, is probably due to making up or-
ders in advance, anticipating orders for that glass. We
hed es.
64
did that in the- early period, and later on we found that
they changed the models of the car, and our glass was lost.
Q. Well, do I understand you wish the Master and the
Court to understand now that you made up glass in which
you used 92,038 feet, which you afterwards found you | could
not sell, because of a change in models?
A. I would have to verify it with the factory books be-
fore I would want to make a definite answer.
Tuesday, May 12, 1931, 10 o’clock A-M-———
pa Een ene
C. L.!McHenry resumes the stand.
Direct examinaton (continued).
By Mr. O’Shea:
Q. Mr. McHenry, you have produced what we have been
referring to in this record as the pink slips, for the vear
1928?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Those pink slips now become white slips. I hand you
one of the 1928 so-called order slips or invoices, and ask
you if that is one of the slips used Ly the Duplate Corpora-
tion during the year 1928?
A. It is. It.is‘marked ‘‘N. S.’’, which ‘is ‘‘non-shatter-
able.’? That was the way they marked them, to designate
the Duplate invoices.
(fol. 86] Q. This document which you have just identified
isona Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company form?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that’in the year 1928 the Pittsburgh Safety Glass
Company used the forms of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Com-
pany? .-
A. Until they could get their supply: made up—printed.
Q. And when was that?
' A. That,was in June, 1928.
Mr. O’Shea: I offer in evidence the document identified
by the witness, and ask to have that marked as Plaintiff’s
Master’s Exhibit 4.
Q. This-Master’s Exhibit No. 4, as -I understand your
policies, originated in the Detroit warehouse. Is that a.
fact?
—
65
A. From all indications, there is where it originated.
Q. And that, together with some of the other sheets of
the order series, was sent where? :
A. To the general office—Pittsburgh Plate Glass Com-
pany’s general office. :
Q. And the only part of the writing that appeared on
that Exhibit No. 4 on its receipt at.the genetal offices of
the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company was the typewritten
part. Is that correct? | |
A. Yes,sir, .__-_ __—
Q. And where were the extensions of footage and prices
put on? |
A. The sales department of the general office.
Q. Of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company?
A. Yes, Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company.
— after that what became of Plaintiff’s Exhibit
No. 4? oe
A. You mean, after the sales prices are put on?
[fol.87] Q. After the sales prices are put on, what did the
sales department of the Pittsburgh Plate 8 Company
———
——_$_——_
do with Exhibit No.-4?
A.-They made an invoice against the Detroit
Q. And kept Exhibit No. 4 in their files?
A. Files, yes, sir.
Q. Did it always remain in their files?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then a duplicate or triplicate or quadruplicate in the
series bearing the same information that appears on Ex-
hibit No. 4 was sent to the Duplate factory. Is that the
fact? ,
A. No; the original was sent to the Duplate.
Q. Original or one of the series was sent to Duplate?
A. Usually the original order was sent.
Q. And did that original have the extensions. of footage
and prices that appear on Exhibit 4?
A. No, sir. | . :
Q. All it had on it was the typewritten part?
A. Yes, sir. Ee
Q. So that Exhibit No. 4 never passed through the hands
of any employee of the Duplate Corporation?
A. It did at the factory.
‘5—767-768
warehouse.
—"
oS
.
Se tid pugs ho tontiog:
Q. This Exhibit No. 4, as I understand it, never reached
the factory, but the original of it did.
A. That is the original; but when it passed through the
Duplate factory, it was not priced.
Q. It was only after it came back from the Duplate fac-
to tsburgh Plate Glass Company’s general of-
fices that it was priced?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that Exhibit No. 4 in the condition in which it is
now never did pass through Duplate Corporation?
A. No, sir.
[fol. 88] Q. Now, did the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Com-
‘pany invoice the Murray Corporation of America at the
price of $3 for the material appearing on Exhibit No. 4?
A. It was invoiced to the Detroit warehouse at the price
shown on your Exhibit No. 4.
.Q. And how or what department or organization invoiced
the Murray Body Corporation of America?
A. Detroit warehouse.
Q. And what did they invoice the Murray Corporation
of America at?
A. I am not able to give that information. I do. not
know. .
Q. Your records here wouldn’t show that?
A. Our records here wouldn’t show.
Q. Well, if you received either directly or indirectly pay-
ment from the Murray Corporation of America at the rate
of $3 a foot, wouldn’t your records here show that?
A. It would show it in Detroit. They would pay the
Detroit wareliouse for.their-invoice. *
Q. And the Detroit warehouse in turn will remit to the -
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company?
A. They would deposit their money collected to the credit
of the treasurer of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company i in
Detroit. - \
Q. And ‘Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company never knows
what the ultimate consumer pays?
A. Not unless they go back and trace the i invoices.
Q. That is to: say, trace the warehouse——
A. Warehouse bills.
Q. Well, the warehouse, of course, is simply a depart-
ment of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, is it not?
A.. Yes, sir.
67
A. No.
' Q. Now, at the end of January, 1928, an em of
Pittsburgh Plate Glass-Company made ‘up one of the so-
Is that correct?
A. Yes, sir. ‘
Q. At what price would Master’s Exhibit No. 4 appear
on the January 1928 recap? _
A. $3 a foot.
Q. It would appear at $3 a foot?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you that recap for the month of January, 1928,
with you? ;
A. No, I have not. I also see there is a separate charge
here for edging, but the price is marked on the bottom of
the bill, $3 per square foot, less 5 per cent.
Q. That is to say, the recap would have the unit sale
price and the foot rate?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then if there was an additional charge for edge
work, that would also appear on the recap?
A. Yes, sir.
-Q. Going back to my previous question, have you the
recap for January, 1928, with you?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Where would that be?
A. If they retained that, it would be in the files up in the
general office, or Creighton probably by this time. At that
early date we were not altogether settled on our account-
ing schedule, so that we could have it standardized, and I
am not just sure as to what form that was made up in back
in 1928—the recap that you askéd for.
Q. Well, do you mean by that that you are not sure at
what price Master’s Exhibit—— ° :
“A. I am sure of the price. ‘
[fol. 90} Q.—at which Master’s Exhibit No. 4 was en-
tered on the recap for that month?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you are sure that would be the $3 unit sales price?
A. Yes, sir, $3.
Q. Now, as I now understand your policy, at the end of
the month there was an entry made in the Pittsburgh Plate
[fol.89] Q. Not organized as a separate corporate entity?
called recaps, of -which Master’s Exhibit No. 1 in typical. -
68
Glass Company’s books, indicating what it owed Duplate
and a corresponding entry made in the Duplate Corpora-
tion’s books, indicating also what Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Company owed Duplate. Is that correct?
A. Those entries would be in the Duplate’s books.
Q. And not in tlie Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company’s
books?
A. Not in the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company’s books
entirely.
Q. How would Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company know?
A. There is a control account in the Pittsburgh Piate
Glass Company’s books.
Q. Is it from these documents, of which Exhibit No. 4 is
typical, or is it from the recap that those cross-entries in
the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company’s books and the Du-
plate books were made?
-A. It would be from the recap.
Q: Referring now to Master’s Exhibit No. 1, that be-
came a document belonging to Pittsburgh Plate ql ass Com-
pany, did it not?
A. No, that was always retained i in the Duplate’s files
Q. And the documents of which Plaintiff’s Exhibit No.
4 is typical became and remained in the Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Company’s files?
A. It remained in the Duplate’s files.
Q. This also remained in the Duplate’s files?
{fol. 91] . A. Yes, sir.
Q. Referring again to Exhibit 1, I call your attention to
’ the fact that there is a description on there, as follows:
‘Bill No. 40.’? Whose bill No. 40 is that—the Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Company’s or the Duplate Corporation’s?
That would be Duplate Corporation.
That would be their Duplate Corporation bill number? ?
Apparently so. I never knew it was on there.
Then do you know whose bill number it is?
No. I said I supposed it was.
Who would know?
Mr. Lepore, the man who made it ~The nest Lepore.
Would Mr. Houser have that information?
No, he would not.
. I think you told me, didn’t you, that Exhibit No. 1
became the basis for the cross-entries in the Pittsburgh
Plate books and the Duplate books as well?
A. Yes, sir.
frerereber
Q. Now, you told me also, I think, that the documents, of
which Exhibit No. 4 is typical, remained in the files of
Duplate Corporation?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you then please explain how the documents, of
which Exhibit No. 4 is typical, could be the original in-
voice to Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, since they never
received it? ;
A. They aré used in compiling the Duplate reports as .
well as the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company’s reports.
Q. They are used interchangeabiy by. both companies?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you bring with you the purchase orders for raw
material, covering the four that I picked out yesterday,
from your large book of purchase orders?
[fol.92] A. Yes, I have those.
_ Q. Will-you let me have those?
A. Here are the purchase orders, the original invoices,
the voucher and the cancelled check for each. |
Q. I show you a set’ of documents which you have pro-
duced, and ask you to explain what they are.
A. The first is a copy of the original purchase order, No.
478/42, to Rasner & Dinger, for one bag clamp. We then
have the original invoice for this bag clamp from Rasner
& Dinger Company and receipted voucher, general voucher
No. 818, Creighton sub-number 767, for $7.74, and cancelled
check No. 680, for $7.74. .
Q. The first paper-in this series you have designated as
the original purchase order? |
A. Copy of the original. |
Q. The original having been sent to the vendor?-
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And this kept in the records of Duplate Corporation
as one of its records?
A. In the purchasing department at Pittsburgh.
Q. Purchasing department of whom?
A. Of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company.
Q. At Pittsburgh?
A. Yes; as they did the purchasing for Duplate.
Q. Then the yellow sheet in this series you have desig-
nated as the voucher of Pittsburgh Safety Glass Company?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is kept in the filés of the Pittsburgh Safety Glass
- Company? ‘ ;
7a
et
are
:
e.
®
ys
=:
q
Ss
¢
sq
te:
a
=
>
+
x
~
GBB Ae pesmi Baby i id MS I es PNG ate Se As ve Deb ua J. Py¥ * }' 28 - .
70
A. Files of the assistant treasurer of the Safety Glass
Company. | :
Mr. O’Shea: I offer as one exhibit the four documents
identified by the witness, as Plaintiff’ s Master’s Exhibit
No. 5.
* o * * # * *
(fal. 93] Q. Mr. McHenry, you have produced a document
here. Will you please identify what that document is?
A. This is original order No. 4854, of. the Fieetwood
Body Company, for eight pieces of Duplate glass.
-Q. That is an order to Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company ?
A. Yes, sir.
_ Q. And is the order referred to on Master’s Exhibit
No. 2? ° ;
A. Yes.
Mr. O’Shea: I nov “fr in evidence the document iden-
tified by the witness, .a ask to have that marked as Plain-
tiff’s Master’s Exhibit No. 2-A. ‘
Q. I show you a document and ask you if you can identify
that?
A. This is a copy of invoice from the Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Company against the Duplate Corporation for. glass
purchased by the Duplate Corporation.
Q. I show you another document, and ask you if you can
identify that?
A. This is a copy of an invoice from Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Company to Pittsburgh Safety Glass Company for |
glass delivered in the month of June, 1928.
Q. Both of the documents which you have. just identified
are true copies of the invoices?
A. They are.
Mr. O’Shea: I now offer in evidence the two documents
identified by the witness, and ask that they be marked as
Plaintiff’s Master’s Exhibits 6 and 6-A.
Q. Do you know the prices at which du Pont Viscoloid
Company sold its pyralin to Duplate Corporation?
[fol. 94] A. Only the prices that are shown on the invoice.
Q. Will you look at those invoices and tell us what that
price was?
—— BS SRA a SeNK AS Nak es Sig a ea chia
.
7
A. That is billed at various prices, depending on size of
sheet, finish and thickness. ;
Q. Does pyralin have a market price for all purchasers
with those variations you have mentioned?
A. Iam not able to say. ;
@. Would there be anyone in your organization who
would know that fact?
A..The purchasing department would probably know
what other competitors’ prices were—that is, competitors
of du Pont Viscoloid.
Q. Do you know whether Duplate Corporation had any
agreement or understanding with du Pont Viscoloid Com-
pany to buy their—that is to say, Duplate’s—pyralin un-
der the market price, if there was a market price?
A. I know of no understanding.
Q. The only one who would know whether there were
such an understanding would be someone connected with
the purchasing department of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Company? M
A. Or Mr. Wherrett. Mr. Wherrett would know. a
71
FOS The BOL OLY aCe ae Ri el 4 | tlh ea td 5
.
JosepH Houser, a witness produced on behalf of the plain-
' tiff, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination..
By Mr. O’Shea: ,
Q. Mr. Houser, I show you five sheets, and ask you if
you can identify what those are?
A. This is made up by the warehouse
Q. Just tell what it is. Is it a formed used by the Du-
plate Corporation? :
(fol.95] A. It is a form used by the Duplate Corporation
for shipments. It is an order blank, but at the same time |
it is used for shipments. .
- Q. As I understand, it originates in the warehouse?
A. That is right. z
Q. And is made out in an original and quadruplicate i
copies as is indicated in the five sheets? i
A. Yes, sir. :
Q. Now, after being made out in the warehouse, where
does the original go to?
72
A. The warehouse sends the original, the duplicate, the
shop ticket, and the triplicate to the general offiee.
Q. And keeps for itself the quadruplicate?
A. That is right.
Q. Now, where you say ‘‘general office,’’ you mean gen-
eral office of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company?
A. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company.
Q. Now, what does the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company
do with the original, the duplicate, the shop ticket and the
triplicate?
A. They keep the triplicate and forward the original and
the duplicate and the shop ticket to the factory.
Q. At that point there is nothing on the ticket except the
amounts and description of the order?
A. That is all.
Q. No prices?
A. No prices.
Q. When you say ‘‘the factory,
of Duplate Corporation?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now. what does the factory of the Duplate Corpora-
tion do with the original, the duplicate, and the shop ticket?
[fol.96] A. The original is kept by the shipping clerk;
the duplicate 1 is kept by Mr. Powell up there.
Q. What is his title?
‘A. What Mr. Powell’s title is, I couldn’t tell-vou that.
Q. Is he in the bookkeeping department?
A. He is the head of the production department.
Q. What becomes of the shop ticket?
A. That goes to the shop, to the inside of the factory,
to work from.
Q. The shop ticket is used as the order from 5 whieh the
Duplate factory makes up the goods to be shipped on that
order?
A. That is right.
Q. And the production manager keeps the duplicate?.
A. That is right.
Q. And what did you say becomes of the original?
A. The shipping clerk has the original.
- Q. The shipping clerk has the original, and uses the
original as his shipping instructions?
A. That is right.
Q. There are no prices on this at that time?
A. No, sir.
99
you mean the f factory
(). The duplicate remains with the Duplate Corporation?
&. Yes, sir.
Q. And the original, what happens to that?
A. It is returned to the Pittsburgh Plate’s general office.
Q. Are the prices then put on the original ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. By whom?
A. By the man in charge of pricing.
(). And who is he? :
A. Why, at present it is Mr. Ross and’ Mr. Donaldson.
‘[fol.97] Q. And they are employees of what company?
A. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company.
Q. And as I understand it then, an employee, after the
prices are put on the original,-an employee of Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Company uses this original to make cross en-
tries in a ledger belonging to the Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Company. Do you know whether that statement is the cor-
rect statement of the facts?
A. Well, what this is used for—it is billed right on that
ticket. After the prices are on that, it is figured out—
everything ¢omplete is figured out. ;
(). The total is figured out of the prices?
A. The total, and then, it is placed in a binder for the
accounting department.
()..Accounting department of what company?
A. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company.
Q. And then is posted by the employees of Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Company to a ledger in the Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Company?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And similarly posted by an employee or employees of —
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company to a ledger of Duplate
Corporation? ©
“A. Well, how it is posted
Q. If you don’t know, say so.
A. I don’t know that.
Q. You do know, however, it is posted in a ledger of
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that the customers’ ledger or a general ledger?
A. Well, it is—just what it is I don’t know.
Q. You don’t do'the work? ,
A. Idon’t do the work. |
smi See
RURAL (cto BCH M MaNTeeyhAty
‘
74
Q. All you know is, it is a ledger, and all you know of
that is from your contact with that department? -
A. Y
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.