Record and brief — George Parks, Grant B. Turner, William A. Taylor, and James A. Vaughn, Partners as Turner, Parks Co., Appellants, vs. Jonathan L. Booth

TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD.

EME COURT OF THE

waren

f

Seance tad

~~

sreettae

A

Perret

nd

oat

—

~4

itt,

\

Ya

Coa

A

ere neneat

7

I.

mentee

GORGE PARKS, GRANT LB. TORNER, WILLIAM A. TAYLOR,

ND JAMES A. VAUGHN, PARTNERS AS TURNER, PARKS

CO., APPELLANTS,

VS.

JONATHAN L. BOOTH,

AEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

FILED OCTOBER 6, 1877.

PRE ou :

ne arte ete renee

Ech pew!

gos AT

eee Saleh p ie

i

a

7

z

a

§

Fa

5

ee LN AE EEE IOLA O RE AEE EL

4 i <8 t i ae, - * CFs Seas ea ot % a ia $

hy ree Se eras Ae “a Sie to te ae? “ ik aseee 3

pie ide Ag aera? 4 gS on Sapp s ; : Cee - ~ putin gh cove

ms way Se t Pe ey ea

No. 233.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

GEORGE PARKS, GRANT B. TURNER, WILLIAM. A. TAYLOR,

AND JAMES A. VAUGHN, PARTNERS A

& CO., APPELLANTS,

VS.

JONATHAN L. BOOTH.

S TURNER, PARKS

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OI

* OHIO.

INDEX.

Original.

DMtwiiir dé bGbh hile hod sek mah Sweat, decdae SEM sb wek ba heaeeekas ween aes I

ee a ne a a nia ia ick). nubian QING RGR AE. eu 8

es nie keds sbiues Vhby daeeds onus Pheaaek bee ib tae 9

I rs TRE epee oo Be gh SR A Mo aie: Acree main eters EOE MOPS ee 9

ECP RES SRS pa RE Ie gm meee ay eee Up SOREN eI Egon BAY mise vaN Lr EYE EIS OR GR 10

i i a a aaa (iw ll wall ad ko i imanilo us ia hee plaka aime ieee D

Ne ne own u oslniive dus weneaied hone kien bbadonaneie 16

ds iain wil ws tno’ 60g Wie hn eedne seNiiahenen weneeem mus 16

Te a ia ean oe ee eae ea 21

i ke ag ss ies wakid -elelakie MOA Ana MORRIE SUL Manel wed eee 23

a <a i wl gk le inden eles Wipes AL wal RCO ae tele Cilicia ane 23

Seeeter’s TOpOrt .... ..ccns .200 oe ‘ike disdain d&g hceneaease dw ameeebeawe 25

Statement filed with report ......... hn 4 ON 7b ihe Une aaa 34

er SUNS £0 POROUS. io iin cide bocce Geek SbN cw aWne ceee bene De

Pe GORING G0 TORONE cnc. csc ne: daduise sueens cgun coev sees 57

EE ISL EEE FES ETE PN RI HAT DIE Re STAT a aE TEEN OEY 59

Ne oe Wha ont adda Nadens SHO+ onde 90a eee. Nene ii inldeeaaialeud sien 60

IE RE EE ODM SE EOE FAT aa 62

I I a ak Sas in ea eid amas mh ce ec edol ealomieie ; 65

EE IEA DS Ean Spa ENE NN I Osa De Oe IST pike Beep Rr PELE MAND MER ae) 66

nn te ND 2a, OOORD oi onns sacdnd ceded dea neds vent debees<s 63

Pn ric I i cai a ie tla 82

RRS Rear ere ana ee EE eA eC ees Uh Dee ena OEE ee ei 92

SE Eh, OIA E new sn ueu sawk cdks uiadnd awe ewe made 108

en PIN in aa ius Vethdeceuebd s<ewhdnaware 111

I ON K5iy ak och ode 1tdeekReneed sues vecnunie 125

; James A. Vaughn i a alle iiaicelas 127

Print.

IT INDEX.

Original. Print.

Testimony of Jonathan L. Booth (recalled) ...... 2... secccc ccceccececee. 130 59

EERE ib uadscueie wae piss bebaeaune sain obidish aso cae ae ea eda wee 138 62

SORCMMORY GF Get. ds WRIGEGD 6 onc c ki ceie cies devecs (caeaek woke Kenee: ae 63

PO TEU vk ce cwwe se hdc cave pigerialbeiniite emeiewas 145 64

Es We NE nd vdeo wb ab wes bebhabe ebueun tea races : 5D 69

GEN EEN icine suite ns egeuis’ cnes.cedee bake aed ieee ee Tae

BON = > ca Wi pete renin se gi hea’ Ga Sig an ied eaten eaten ee a ice a 222 93

ee CIN oes Scents smencn scan ceee ds skee pls ib eh cine oak ena 239 99

SIE CEE is IE ca. & nh inie css hen dee bd ap ak Keak ebee aun 293 86 117

Pie le ER Ding eked WUN ie k ahead baad keane ke bea 357 138

Jas. A. Vaughn...... SN MOS Seeds be eebe nes Ens KROSOS wae ees 361 139

Reissued letters patent to J. L. Booth, No. 1826........................ 379 #8145

Letters patent to Samuel Canby..... iamens Laba suns cobine nies Carrera, | See

Specification in the matter of letters patent to Flickinger & Krim ...... 395 162

Letters patent to B. T. Trimmer.......... id Mi deh ek Rhee Ee ewe 404 156

eek En See ee hs ks BODE ons dk wind tbe dee Kences dand sicenne nee ae oe

Letters patent to Jno. Bean & Benj. Wright.......... ‘ac 4 oi a en eee 417 165

Specification of John Bean .... ............ ees; REE EO IC Cp en ERR 422 168

pee SR oink Kebabk Henwedoeames Siku kone Koes jieewe 426 169

LD an aew Ahab Cti ne aaa Ce heNe awk hebeekanwede. Me. ae

Reissued letters patent to J. A. Vaughn ........ mene ihe te veh beens wees 435 174

Ea es Ee SEEN 64d a se aane be us Sd ewina edbe Kees eebeunies Kn oues 441 176

LOU os dic hae kati owe ppd pelea Gh dapat uanedeik Gacnaibh > dbe-am x nee 448 179

eal ice Son kki ue bales dake biGbde eGNa dkaaes So ebedewense eeen 449 181

Letter—Baxter & Co. to O. B. Ford ........ ben aks eae deed seaman eek 450 182

Letter—Ford to Booth & Co. ...... saleerdatena sal wait cs chine aeeidin awe “exes 451 182

Defendant's account ........... (ian Cee bien nae eee ee hone unalone ene o2 182

Circular of J. L. Booth ...... inch cakes Me bok bah Rake kn cata caw 459 #8187

Peta Bak EE ON os anne bucindn euyGane eweued code ddeu Pee oe 461 190

Letters patent to J. A. Vaughn ..... cninee os mn inka piace cone wtipeies. ao ae

Reissucd 'atters patent to J. A. Vaughn ..... ieee ia aie ee wien e peal i. —. 2

Report of examiner in matter of application for extension by J. L. Booth... 482 202

Report of examiner on application of J. L. Booth for extension. ........ 489 205

Reissued letters patent so Jas. A. Vaughn ...... 1.2.2. 2.2. cone one et ae

Garemane OF. J. Li OUER Ge OO oo as oan. once once oe be CEAS Mile bel cama abel 5902 210

LCCINOD . -AUNt ewe bMbebbs ven Nd dOCMEE HGne Dheaew dadeek aoe Sd s 503 212

Srey GNU Coo eh. Co ccc wns wee oue'e i. cusee made deena ak Waes 005 8214

PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH. 1

1 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Northern District of Ohio:

At a stated term of the circuit court of the United States within and

for the northern district of Ohio, begun and held at the city of Cleveland,

in said district, on the first Tuesday in October, being the third day of

said month, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and

seventy-six, and of a Independence of the United States of America

the 101st.

Present, the honorable Martin Welker, district judge. Among the

proceedings then and there had were the foliowing, to wit:

JONATHAN L. BooTH 2

vs

i 7 4 a 22 {¢ } a cr

GEORGE PARKS, GRANT B. TURNER, WILL- { 49, Chancers

iam A. Taylor, & Jas. A. Vaughn. 5

Be it remembered that heretofore, to wit, on the 21st day of April,

1871, came the complainant, by his solicitors, and filed in the clerk’s

office of said court his bill of complaint, which is in the words and fig-

ures following, to wit:

Bill.

United States circuit court, northern district of Ohio.

JONATHAN L. BOOTH

Us,

GEORGE PARKS, GRANT Bb. TURNER, WILL-

iam A. Taylor & James A. Vaughn.

ane sate” shear tae J

To the judges of the circuit court of the United States for the northern

district of Ohio :

Jonathan L. Booth, of the city of Rochester, in the northern district of

New York, a citizen of the said State of New York, brings this his bill

of complaint against Geore Parks, Grant B. Turner, William A. Taylor &

James A. Vaughn of Cuyahoga Falls, in the county of Summit, in the

northern district of Ohio.

2 And thereupon your orator complains and says:

That heretofore and before the 20th day of September, 1859,

your orator had invented a new and useful improvementin grain separa-

tors which had not been known or used by others before his discovery

and invention thereof, and was not at the time of his application for a

patent therefor hereinafter stated in public use or on sale with his con-

sent or allowance. That thereupon, and before the said 20th day of

September, 1859, your orator made application in writing by a petition

presented to the Commissioner of Patents describing said improvement,

und praying that letters patent might be issued to him therefor, and ac-

companied the same by his oath that he was a citizen of the United States,

that he did verily believe that he was the original and first inventor or

discoverer of the said improvment, and that the same had not to the

best of his knowledge or belief been previously known or used, and paid

into Treasury of the United States the sum of thirty dollars, and did

also duly deliver such a written description of his invention or discov-

ery, and of the manner and process of making and constructing the

Same, accompanied by drawings and a model of said invention, as was

REC. 233—1

2 PARKS ET AL. V8. BOOTH.

by law required, and did in all respects conform to aud comply with the

acts of Congress in such case made and provided.

And your orator turtber says, that thereupon the United States of

America issued its letters patent under the seal of the Patent Office

dated the 20th day of September, 1859, and signed by the Secretary of

the Interior, and countersigned by the Acting Commissioner of Patents,

whereby the United States of America did grant, according to law, unto

your orator, bis heirs, administrators, or assigns, for the term of four-

teen years from the date thereof the full and exclusive right and liberty

of making, constructing, using and vending to others to be used the

said improvement in grain separators, a description whereof wasannexed

to and madea part of said letters patent, to which said letters pat-

3 ent or a duly certified copy thereot now here ready to be produced

your orator craves leave to refer. |

And your orator turther says, that prior to the 20th day of Septem-

ber, 1860, said letters patent being inoperative or invalid by reason of

a defective or insufficient description or specification of said invention,

were by your orator surrendered to the Commissioner of Patents, and

thereupon such proceedings were duly bad in conformity with the acts

of Congress in such case made and provided that on the 25th day of

September, 1860, there were duly issued to your orator by the United

States of America, under the seal of the Patent Office, signed by the

Secretary of the Interior, and countersigned by the Commissioner of

Patents, amended letters patent securing to your orator, his heirs, ad-

ministrators and assigns, for the term of fourteen years from the 20th

day of September, 1859, the tull and exclusive right and liberty of mak-

ing, constructing, using and vending to others to be used the said im-

proved grain separator, a description whereof was given 1n an amended

schedule annexed to and made a part of said amended letters patent, to

which amended letters patent, or a duly certified copy thereof, now here

ready to be produced, your orator craves Jeave to refer.

| And your orator furtber says, that prior to the 29th day of Novem-

ber, 1564, said amended letters patent being inoperative or invalid by

reason of a detective or insufficient description or specification of said

invention, were by your orator surrendered to the Commissipuer of Pat-

ents, and thereupon such proceedings were duly had in conformity with

the acts of Congress in such case made and provided, that ov the 29th

day of November, 1864, there were duly issued to your orator

4 by the United States of America under the seal of Patent Office

signed by the Secretary of the Interior and countersigned by the

Commissioner of Patents, amended letters patent securing to your ora-

tor, his heirs, administrators and assigns, for the term of fourteen years

from the 20th day of September, 1859, the full and exclusive right and

liberty of making, constructing, using, and vending to others to be used

the said improvement, a description whereof was given in an amended

schedule annexed to aud made a part of said amended letters patent, to

which said amended letters patent or a duly certified copy thereof, vow

here ready to be produced, your orator craves leave to refer.

And your orator further says, that immediately atter the issuing of

said letters patent and said amended letters patent he put the inven-

tion described in and secured by the same into publie use. by manu-

facturing and putting on sale the said improved grain separator, and is

still in the exclusive possession of the rights secured thereby.

And your orator further says, that the rights so secured by said

amended letters patent is of great value, and that your orator would

make aud would have made large profits from the manufacture and sale

PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH. 3

of said improved grain separator, if not interfered with and prevented

by the unlawful acts of the defendants done and threatened to be done

as hereinafter stated..-

And your orator further says, that since the first day of January, 1860,

the defendants, George Parks, Grant B. Turner, William A. Taylor &

James A. Vaughn, in violation of the rights so secured to your orator

by said letters patent and said amended letters patent, have at Cuya-

hoga Falls aforesaid, made, used and vended to others to be used grain

: separators constructed in all respects in the manner described

D in the specifications attached to said amended letters patent, and

are now engaged in making and offering for sale, and selling a

large number of grain separators so constrreted, and the said detend.

ants do unlawfully refuse to desist from making, using, and selling the

Same in violation and infringement of your orator’s rights secured to him

as aforesaid, and without his consent or allowance.

All which actings and doings are contrary to equity and good con-

science.

In consideration whereof, and for as much as your orator can only

have adequate relief in this honorable court, where matters of this kind

are alone cognizable. To the end, therefore, that: the said defendants

may respectively, full, true,and perfect answers make upon respective cor-

poral oaths, according to the best of their respective knowledge, inform-

ation, and belief, to all and singular, the matters and charges aforesaid,

and that as fully and particularly as if the same were again repeated ;

and that the said defendants and each of them may be enjoined and re-

strained from further making, using, or vending to others to be used,

the said improvement in grain separators, the exclusive right to make

and vend which is secured to your orator by said amended letters pat

eit, and that the defendants may be decreed to account with & pay

over to your orator the profits of which the defendants have deprived

your orator by the intringement of said patent, and by such unlawful use,

manulacture, and sale of said improvement in grain separators; and

t at the defendants may be enjoined from making, using, or vending

such separators so by them unlawfully made, used, and vended; and

that such separators so made by them that now are or may here-

6 after be in their possession, may be broken up and destroyed;

and that your orator may have such other and further relief as

the nature*of his case shall require and as shall be agreeable to equity.

May it please your honors the premises being considered to grant

unto your orator, a writ of injunction issuing out of and under the seal

of this honorable court, or issued by one of your honors according to the

form of the statute in such ease made and provided, enjoining and re-

straining the said defendants, their attorneys, agents, and servants,

from making any such improved grain separator as is described in said

amended letters patent last issued to your orator, and also may it please

your honors to grant unto your orator a writ of subpeena directed to the

said George Parks, Grant B. Turner, William A. Taylor, & James A.

Vaughn, commanding them on a day certain, therein to be named, to be

and appear in this honorable court, then and there to answer the

premises, and to stand to, perform, and abide such further order, direc-

tion, and decree as may be made against them.

And your orator, as in duty bound, will ever pray, Xe.

JONATHAN L. BOOTH.

WILLEY, CARY & TERRELL,

Solr’s for Complainant.

W. F. COGSWELL,

Of Counsel.

4 PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH.

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK,

Monroe County, ss: :

On this 19th day of April, 1871, before me personally appeared

Jonathan L. Booth, who, being by me duly sworn, deposes and says

that he is the plaintiff in the above-entitled action; that he has

heard read the foregoing bill of complaint, and knows the con-

tents thereof; that the same is true of his own knowledge, ex-

cept as to the matters therein stated on information and belief, and as

to those matters he believes it to be true.

[SEAL.] JOS. D. HUSBANDS,

U. S. Commissioner in & for said District.

And, thereupon, there was duly issued herein out of said court, a cer-

tain writ of subpcena which is in the words and figures following,

to wit:

8 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Northern District of Ohio, ss:

The President of the United States of America to the marshal of the.

northern district ot Obio, greeting:

You are hereby commanded to summon George Parks, Grant B. Tur-

ner, William A. Taylor, and James Vaughn, if they be found in your

district, to be and appear in the circuit court of the United States, for

the northern district of Ohio aforesaid, at Cleveland, on the first Mon-

day in June next, to answer a certain bill in chancery filed and exhibited

in said court against them by Jonathan L. Booth.

Hereof they are not to fail under the penalty of the law thence ensu-

ing, and have you then and there this writ.

Witness the honorable Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the United

States, this 21st day of April, A. D. 1871, and in the 95th year of the

Independence of the United States of America.

[SEAL. | EARL BILL, Clerk.

Memorandum.

The said defendants are required to enter their appearance in this suit,

in the clerk’s office of said court, on or before the first Monday of June,

1871, otherwise the said bill may be taken pro confesso.

EARL BILL, Clerk.

9 And afterward, to wit, on the 25th day of April, 1871, said sub-

poena was returned to said clerk’s office by said marshal, en-

dorsed as follows, to wit:

Return.

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, 88:

On the 25th day of April, A. D. 1871, I made service of this writ by

delivering to each of the within named parties, George Parks, Grant B.

Turner, William A. Taylor, and James Vaughn, at Cuyahoga Falls,

Summit County, Ohio, a true and certitied copy of this writ.

R. HASTINGS,

U. 8S. Marshal.

By S. M. SMEAD,

Deputy.

ai aa Sn en

Wisc oi Kt CMP OE eg Bo os

PARKS ET Al. VS. BOOTH. 5

Leave to amend bill,

And afterward, to wit, at the April term of said court, to wit, on the

Sth day of July, A. D. 1871, on motion to the court by Messrs. Willey,

Cary & Terrell, solicitors for the complainant, it is ordered that said

complainant have leave to amend his bill filed herein forthwith.

And afterward, to wit, on the 10th day of July, A. D. 1871, came

said complainant, by his solicitors, and filed herein in said clerk’s office

his amended bill of complaint, which is in the words and figures follow-

ing, to wit: }

Amend bill,

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, ss:

Circuit court of the United: States, April term, 1871. In chancery.

JCNATHAN L. Bootu }

Us, >

GEORGE PARKS ET AL.

To the judges of said court:

10 The said Jonathan L. Booth, complainant, by leave of the

court first had and obtained, now comes and amends his petition

herein by adding to the prayer thereof next after the words *‘ agreeable

to equity,” the words following; “And especially that the complainant

may recover of said defendants in addition to the profits to be accounted

for by them the damages the complainant has sustained by said infringe-

ment, and that the same may be assessed under the direction of said

court & the damages trebled or increased as provided for in case of ver-

dicts found in actions on the case for the infringement of patents.”

And your petitioner will ever pray, &e.

By WILLEY, CARY & TERRELL,

’ His Nol’rs.

Leave to ansier.

And afterward, to wit, at the April term of said court, to wit, on the

27th day of July, A. D. 1871, on motion it is ordered by the court that

the said defendants have leave to file their answer herein on or before

the first day of September, A. D. 1871.

And afterward, to wit, on the Ist day of September, A. D. 1871, came

the respondents, by their solicitors, and filed in the clerk’s office of said

court their answer, which is in the words and figures following, to wit ;

Answer.

To the honorable the judges of the circuit court in and for the northern

district of Ohio:

The joint and several answer of George Parks, Grant B. Turner, Wil-

liam A. Taylor, and James A. Vaughn to the bill of complaint of

Jonathan L. Booth. 3

11 These defendants, now and at all times hereafter, saving and

reserving unto themselves all and all manner of benefit and ad-

6 PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH.

vantage of exception which may be had or taken to the many errors,

uncertainties and imperfections in the said bill of complaint contained,

for answer thereunto, or unto so much thereof as these defendants are

advised it is material or necessary for them to make answer to, answering

Say:

That these defendants are informed and believe, and therefore admit,

that letters patent of the United States were granted on the 20th day

of September, 1859, and bearing that date, to the said complainant for

an alleged improvement in grain separators, and that the said com-

plainant obtained a reissue of said letters patent, bearing date the 2oth

day of December. :

But the said defendants on information and belief deny that the said

complainant was the original and first inventor of the alleged improve-

ment in grain separators described in the reissued letters patent recited

in his said bill of complaint, or of any substantial or material part

thereof, which was not known or used prior to the alleged: invention

thereot by said complainant, but these respondents are informed and

verily believe, and therefore aver that machines for separating grain

from oats, cockle and other foreign substances and impurities contain-

ing substantially the same devices and similar in all essential features

of construction and combination to the machine described in the letters

patent mentioned in said complainant’s bill of complaint, were known

and used for more than two years prior tothe date of said complainant’s

application for said letters patent.

And these defendant’ further answering say, on information

12 and belief, that prior to any alleged invention thereof by said

complainant, and for more than two years before the date of his

application for said letters patent, the same invention as is described

and claimed in said reissued letters patent mentioned in said complain-

ant’s bill of complaint, or substantial and material parts thereof, were

described and shown in and by the following recited letters patent, to

Wit:

Letters patent of the United States granted to James Sturr, dated

the 9th day of September, 1845, for an improved winnowing machine.

Letters patent of the United States gianted to Stephen M. Yarman

(or Yeaman) dated the twentieth day of June, 1846, tur an improved

machine for winnowing wheat.

Letters patent of the United States granted to Jonathan Bean, No.

8504, dated the 11th day of November, 1851, for improvement in win-

nowing machines.

Letters patent of the United States granted to Benjamin T. Trimmer,

No. 21036, dated the 27th day of July, 1858, tor improvement in ma-

chines for cleaning grain.

Letters patent of the United States granted to James B. Crist, No.

23903, dated the 10th day of May, 1849, for an improvemeut in grain

separators.

And also in the specification and drawings attached to the application

of Charles B. Scoville, for letters patent of the United States filed in

the Patent Office, on the 12th day of July, in the year 1852.

And these respondents further answering, on information and belief,

say that grain separators substantially the same in construction and

operation as that described as the alleged invention of said complain-

ant, have been in public use for more than two years prior to the ap-

plication of said complainant for his said original letters patent

13 of 20th September, 1859, and prior to any alleged invention

thereof by said complainant, by sundry persons, whose names and

PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH q

places of residence, as well as the places where the same were used, are

not yet ascertained by these respondents, but which these respondents

crave leave to set forth in a supplemental answer to be filed by them so

soon as they are sufficiently informed in relation thereto.

And these respondents further answering, on information and belief

deny that tbe said complainant is in exclusive possession of his alleged

invention, or that the issue to him of said original letters-patent of 20th

September, 1859, or of said reissued letters-patent of 29th November,

1864, vested in said complainant any exclusive right in said alleged in-

vention, but they allege that by reason of the prior knowledge and use

of said improvements by others, the said reissued letters-patent are of

no effect to vest any such exclusive right in said complainant.

And these respondents further answering, deny that they are making

or have made, used, and vended to others to be used grain separators

constructed in all resfeets in the manner described in the specifications

attached to said amended letters-patent, and are now engaged in making

and offering for sale and selling a large number of grain separators so

constructed as charged in said complainant’s said bill of complaint, but

they admit that they are making and selling grain separators substan-

tially similar in construetion and operation to that described in certain

reissued letters-patent of the United States, granted on the 11th day of

June, 1861, to one James A. Vaughn, one of these respondents, for

which invention letters patent of the United States were originally is-

sued to bim on the 24th day of April, 1860, and reissued as afore-

14 said; and these respondents aver that they have a just and law-

ful right so to do.

And these respondents, further answering, say, that in so far as the

grain separators so constructed and sold by them are similar in the de-

vices employed and in the construction thereof to the devices described

in the reissued letters-patent in the said complainant’s bill of complaint

set forth, they were well known and in common use prior to the alleged

invention thereof by said complainant, but that there is a substantial,

material, and patentable difference between the grain separators so

made and sold by them, and the alleged invention of said complainant

described in his said reissued letters-patent.

And these respondents, further auswering say, that they believe they

are not infringing and exclusive rights of said complainants by reason of

such manufacture and sale of grain separators as described in said re-

issued letters-patent to James A. Vaughn, but that they have a right

so to do. 3

And these defendants pray to be hence dismissed with their reason-

able costs and charges in this behalf most wrongfully sustained.

GEO. PARKS.

G. B. TURNER.

WILLIAM A, TAYLOR.

JAMES A. VAUGHN.

W. BAKEWELL,

Defendants’ Solicitor.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

Northern District of Ohio, County of Cuyahoga, ss:

Before we,'a notary public in and for said county, personally ap-

peared George Parks, Grant B. Turner, William A. Taylor, and James

A. Vaughn, who being duly sworn do depose and say that the facts

set forth in the foregoing answer so far as they are stated on

S - PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH.

15 their own knowledge are true, and so far as stated upon informa-

tion and belief they verily believe them to be true.

Sworn to and subscribed this dist day of August, A. D. 187]

[SEAL. | OF P. HUMPHRE Y.

Notary Public.

And afterward, to wit, on the 11th day of September, A. D. 1871,

came the complainant, by his solicitors, and filed in the clerk’s office of

said court his replic: ition which is in the words and figures following,

to wit:

Replication.

Circuit court of the Wnited States for the northern district of Ohio.

JOHN L. BOOTH ET AL. )

U8. Vo

2259, Replication.

GEORGE PakRKS ET AL. \

a ead

The replication of John L. Booth et al., complainants, to the answer of

George Parks, et al., defendants.

These repliants, saviug and reservipg uuto themselves now and at

all times hereafter all and all manner of benefit and advantage of ex

ception which may be had or taken to the manifold insufficiencies ot

the said answer, for replication thereunto say that they will aver, main-

tain, and prove their said bill of complaint to be true, certain, & suth-

cient in law to be answered unto, and that the said answer of the said

defendants is uncertain, untrue, and insufficient to be replied unto by

these repliants, without this, that any other matter or thing whatsoever

in the said answer contained material or effectual in the law to be re-

plied unto, and not herein and hereby well and sufficiently replied unto,

confessed or avoided, traversed or denied, is true, all swhich mat-

16 ters and things these repliants are and will be ready to aver,

maintain, and prove as this honorable court shall direct, and

humbly pray as in and by their said bill they have already prayed.

WILLEY, CARY & TERRELL,

Complainants’ Solicitors.

Cont'd,

And afterward, to wit, at the April term of said court, A. D. 1871,

to wit, on the 30th day of September, A. D. 1571, this cause is contin-

ued to the next term of this court.

Cont'd.

And afterward, to wit, at the October term of said court, A. D. 1871,

to wit, on the < 0th day of December, A. D. 1871, this cause is continued

to the next term of this court.

Leave to file amended answer.

And afterward, to wit, at the January term of said court, to wit, on

the 10th day of January, A. D. 1872, on motion and by consent of par-

ties, it 1S ordered that said defendants have leave to file an amendment

to their answer instanter.

<n tailings atten

eam ee

PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH. 9

And thereupon, on said 10th day of January, A. D. 1872, came said

defendants, by their solicitors, and filed in the clerk’s office of said

court their amended answer, which is in the words and figures follow-

ing, to wit:

Amended ansicer.

United States circuit court, northern district of Ohio. In eqnity.

JONATHAN L. BooTH }

rs, ‘

GEO. PARKS, GRANT B. TURNER, WM. A. TAY- |

lor, & Jas. A. Vaughn.

To the honorable the judges of the cireuit court in and for the northern

district of Ohio:

17 The further answer of George Parks, Grant B. Turner, William

A. Taylor, and James A. Vaughn, defendants, to the bill of

complaint of Johnathan L. Booth, complainant.

These defendants, by leave of the court here first had and obtained,

further answering on information and belief, answer & say: That the

said Jonathan L. Booth was not the first aud original inventor of the

alleged improvement deseribed and claimed in his said reissued letters

patent of November 29th, 1864, but that grain separators of substan-

tially the same construction and operation in some or all material parts

thereof were prior to the said alleged invention of said complainant, and

for more than two vears before the date of his application for original

letters patent therefor, described and shown in letters patent of the

United States No. 12341, granted to John Bean and Benjamin Wr'ght

Feb. 6th, 1855, for improvement in smut machines.

Letters patent of the United States granted to Samuel Canby, Decem-

ber 28th, 185%, tor grain separators.

Letters patent of the United States granted to W. H. Angel and M.

Coftan August 3d, 1858, for wheat separator,

Application of John Bean for letters patent of the United States for

grain separator filed May 19th, 1865.

Application of D. Flickenger and S. Krim for letters patent of the

United States for machine for cleaning grain filed May 28th, 1842.

Also that grain separators of substantially the same construction and

operation as in said reissued letters patent described and claimed have

been made and in public use for more than two years prior to the ap-

plication of said complainant for his said original letters patent, and

_prior to the date of his said alleged invention, at the Etna Mill in

18 Akron, Summit County, State of Ohio, by the firm of Chamber-

lain & Company, formerly proprietors of said mill, and by their

successors in business, and that such prior construction and use were

known to Parvin Eames, now deceased, who formerly resided in Akron

aforesaid ; to John Scupholm, now residing in Cuyahoga Falls, county

and State last aforesaid, and to others, due notice of whose names and

places of residence will be given to complainant or his counsel.

Also at the manufacturing establishment formerly carried on by John

Bean, about one and one half miles southerly from Bellville in the county

of Richland, State of Ohio, and by the said John Bean, and that such

prior construction aud use were kuown to John Bean, now residing in

Hudson, in the county of Lenawee, State of Michigan, and to Louis

10 PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH.

Young, now residing in Belleville aforesaid, and others, due notice of

whose names and residences will be given as aforesaid.

Also at the manufacturing establishment. of John Bean, in Hudson,

county of Lenawee, State of Michigan, by the said John Bean, and that

such prior construction and use were known to Jobn Bean aforesaid, re-

siding at Hadson aforesaid, and others, due notice of whose names and

residences will be given as aforesaid.

These defendants, further answering, say that the state of the art at

the date of the complainant’s said alleged invention was sach as will ap-

pear from the evidence, of which notice is given in this and in defend-

ants’ original answer, and from such other evidence as will be produced,

that complainant’s said reissued patent is not for a patentable subject

matter, and that said patent cannot properly be construed as covering

the grain separator as made by these defendants and patented to

19 one of them, as set forth in their original answer, and that these

defendants are not guilty of any infringement thereof, and also

that the said complainant has interpolated into the specifications at-

tached to and forming a part of his said reissued letters patent of No-

vember 29th, 1864, a description of the grain separator made by these

defendants, and has described another and a different invention from

that which constituted the subject matter of his said original patent,

and that said reissued letters patent are invalid.

These defendants, further answering on information and belief. answer

and say that at or about the date of complainant’s said original patent

or shortly thereafter, the said complainant learned of the invention made

by and afterwards patented to one of these defendants, as set forth in

defendants’ original answer; that after making a small number of grain

separators such as were described in his said original patent, and at-

tempting to put the same into practical use, complainant ascertained

that such grain separators did not possess such a degree of utility as to

render them a marketable or saleable commodity; that he thereupon

abandoned the manufacture of such grain separators, and commenced

and for a time continued the manufacture and sale of the grain separa-

tors described in the reissued letters patent of the United States granted

June llth, A. D. 1861 (Reissue No. 90, whole No. 1195), to James A.

Vaughn, one of these defendants, whereof the said Vaughn was the first

and original inventor, the equitable title to which last-named reissued

patent is now vested in these defendants (the legal title being held by

said Vaughn). That the said complainant has thereby infringed the

said last-named patent, and the exclusive rights of these defendants

thereunder, and as against these defendants has no legal or equi-

20 table claim or right of action; and also that the said facts consti-

tute an abandonment on the part of the said complainant of any

exclusive right to which he was or might have been entitled under his

said original letters patent, and that his said reissued letters patent

were for an alleged invention which had been abaudoned, and are void

and invalid.

And defendants pray as in their original answer they have already

prayed.

GEO. PARKS.

G. B. TURNER.

W. A. TAYLOR.

JAS. A. VAUGHN.

PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH. 11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHTO,

County of Summit, 88;

Before me, the undersigned authority, duly authorized to administer

oaths, personally came Geo. Parks, G. B. Turner, Wm. A. Taylor, and

Jas. A. Vaughn, who, being duly sworn, did severally depose and say

each tor himself ‘th: ut he has read or heard read the foregoing supple-

mental answer so as to become familiar with the contents thereof; that

so far as the facts therein set forth are within his own knowledge they

are true, and so far as thev are derived from the information of others

he verily believes them to be true to the best of his knowledge and

belief.

GEO. PARKS.

G. B. TURNER.

W. A. TAYLOR.

JAS. A. VAUGHN

Sworn and subscribed before me this 26th day of December, 1871.

[SEAL. | ©. P. HUMPHREY,

| Notary Public.

21 And afterwards, to wit, on the 25th day of January, A. D.

1872, came again the defendants by their solicitors, and filed in

the clerk’s office of said court their further amended answer, which is in

the words and figures following, to wit:

Amend't to answer.

United States circuit court, northern district of Ohio. In equity.

JONATHAN L. BootH

Hs. ,

GEORGE PARKS, GRANT B. TURNER, WM. A. |!

Taylor \ Jas. A. Vaughn.

To the honorable the judges of the circuit court in and for the northern

district of Ohio:

The further answer of George Parks, Grant B. Turner, Wm. A. Taylor,

and James A. Vaughn, defendants, to the bill of complaint of Jona-

than L. Booth, complainant.

These defendants, by leave of the court he ‘re first had and obtained,

further answering on information and belief f, answer and say, that the

said Jonathan L. Booth was not the origin: il and first inventor of the

alleged invention described and claimed in his said reissued letters

patent of Nov. 29th, 1864, but that grain separators of substantially the

same construction and operation in some or all material parts thereof

had been made and in public use for more than two years prior to the

application of said complainant for his said original letters patent, and

prior to the date of his said alleged invention, at the tna mills, in

Akror, Summit County, Ohio, by the firm of George Buel and Com-

pany, and that the same was known to John Scupholen, now residing 1a

Cuyahoga Falls, county and State aforesaid.

22 Also at the grist mill of S. M. Wirts, in Hudson, Lenawee

County, Michigan, and by the said S. M. Wirts, and that the

same was known to John Bean, of Hudson aforesaid.

And these defendants, further answering, say that for the purpose of

deceiving the public, the description and specification filed by the said

12 | PARKS ET AL. VS BOOTH.

complainant in the Patent Office, and forming a part of his said reissued

patent, was made to contain less than the whole truth relative to his

invention, and that the said specification is ambiguous, and dves not

particularly point out and distinctly claim the part, improvement, or

combination claimed to be the invention of said complainant, and that

said reissued letters patent are void.

And these defendants pray as in their original answer they have al-

ready prayed.

GEO. PARKS.

GRANT B. TURNER.

WILLIAM A. TAYLOR.

JAS. A. VAUGHN.

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO,

County of Summit, ss:

Before me, the undersigned authority, duly authorized to administer

oaths, personally came George Parks, G. B. Turner, Wm. A. Taylor, and

Jas. A. Vaughn, who, being duly sworn, depose aud say each for himself

that he has read or heard read the foregoing answer; that so far as the

facts therein stated are within his own knowledge they are true, and so

far as they are derived from the information of others he verily believes

them to be true.

[SEAL. | C. P. HUMPHREY,

| Notary Public.

23 Cont'd, de. Hearing & taken under advisement.

And thereupon this cause was continued from term to term of said

court until the January term thereof, A. D. 1874, at which said January

term, to wit, on the 13th day of Mareh, A. D. 1574, this cause came

on to be heard upon the pleadings and testimony, and the arguments

of counsel being concluded, the cause is taken under advisement by the

court. | .

Cont'd,

And afterward, to wit, at the January term of said court, to wit, on

the 6th day of April, A. D. i874, this cause is continued to the next

term of this court.

Decree.

And afterward, to wit, at the April term of said court, to wit, on the

9th day of May, A. D. 1874, this cause came on for bearing upon the

bill of the complainant, the answer of the defendants, and the amend-

ments thereto, and replication, testimony, and exhibits, and was argued

by counsel. |

Whereupon the court having taken said cause under advisement, do

now find that the equity of this cause is with the complainant, and that

the facts stated in said bill of complaint are true, and especially that

the reissued letters patent granted to said complainant on the 29th day

of November, 1864, is and was valid, and for a new and useful invention

as therein claimed, and that the defendants, since said last-named

date in the grain separators manufactured, used, and sold by them, have

contained the invention claimed and secured to said complainant by

said letters patent.

Therefore it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that said reissued let-

ters patent are good and valid; that said complainant was the original

and first inventor of the improvements therein described and claimed,

and that the defendants have infringed upon said letters patent,

24 since said last-named date, and upon the exclusive rights of the

complainant under the same.

And it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the complain.

ant do recover of the defendants the profits, gains and advantages

which the said defendants have received, or which have arisen or ac-

crued to them from said infringements of said patent by the manufact-

ure, use, or sale of the improvements described and secured by said

reissued letters patent, since November 29, 1864, and also such damages

in addition to said profits as the complainant may have sustained by

reason of said infringements.

And it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that said complain-

ant do recover of the defendants his costs in this suit to be taxed.

And it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that it be referred to

©. B. Beach, esq., as a special master commissioner hereby for that pur-

pose appointed, residing in the city of Cleveland, to ascertain, take and

state, and report to the court an account of the gains, profits and ad-

vantages which the said defendants have received, or which have arisen

or accrued to them since November 25, 1864, from infringing the said

exclusive rights of said complainants by the manufacture, use, and sale

of said improvements patented in said reissued letters patent, and also

what damages in addition thereto the complainant has sustained by rea-

son of said infringements. —

And it is further ordered, adjudged, and deereed that the complain-

ants on such accounting have the right to cause an examination of said

defendants ore tenus or otherwise, and also the production of the books,

vouchers, and documents of the defendants, and that the said de-

29 fendants attend for such purpose before said master from time to

time as seid master shall direct.

Cont'd, Le.

And thereupon this cause was continued from term to term of said

court until the October term thereof, A. D. 1875.

And afterward, to wit, on the 24th day of November, A. D. 1875, the

report of said master was filed herein in said clerk’s offive, which is in

the words and figures following, to wit:

Report.

United States circuit court, northern district of Oxio.

JONATHAN L. BOOTH )

U8. !

GEORGE PARKS, GRANT Bb. TURNER, WIL- f

iam A. Taylor, & Jas. A. Vaughn. \

The undersigned, duly appointed and qualified by this honorable court

as a special master, ** to ascertain and take and state and report to the

cou... “account of the gains, profits, and advantages which the said

defenda, “nave received, or which have arisen or accrued to them since

the 29th day “November, 1864, from infringing the said exclusive rights

of the “id com, iuant by the manufacture, use, and sale of the said

iimproVeus- “ “lin said reissued letters patent, and also what

PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH. : 13

- PARKS ET AL VS. BOOTH.

damages in addition thereto the complainant has sustained by reason of

said infringements” having caused an examination of the said defend-

ants to be made before him, and having also made an examination of

the books, vovcners, and other documents of the said defendants

26 pertaining thereto, and, having considered the arguments made

and submitted by counsel for the respective parties, makes the

following report:

The defendants, from the 10th day of January, 1865, up to the 28th

day of April, 1871, manufactured and sold of the inhibited machines

431. (See statement, as prepared by Parks, contained in book accom-

panying this report, pages 23-38. Said book was prepared for the con-

venience of the court and the master from the statement filed by the

defendants, marked Defendant’s Account; and also as a statement of

plaintiff?s damages submitted with his argument.) Of these 431 ma-

chines, the defendants sold to their agents, Todd & Co., Baxter & Co.,

& A. R. Halterman, 365. Of these 434 machines the defendants sold,

on their own account, or to parties other than their said agents, 68.

The machines manufactured and sold by the defendants are distin-

guished by the numbers 2, 3, & 4.

The eost of manufacture of No. 2 machine is. eee nt ae So Ft S45 OO

66 ze 6% be 3 EE ee ie ee a ee ee 60 OO

6 rT 6 66 4 nh ae ME ge Tl Se nk er a pC 100 00

See last item of Parks’ statement, marked Defendants’ %.

Of the number 2 machines the defendants sold to parties other than

their agents, 33 mac hines at an average price of $84.17; cost of No. 2,

45.00—839.17. :

24 Of the ‘No.3 o machines the defendants sold to parties other than

their-agents 20 machines at an average price of $108.33; cost of

No. 3, 60.00—48.33.

Of the No. 4 machines the defendants sold to parties other than their

agents 15 machines at an average price of $192.00; cost of No. 4,

100,00—92.00. |

Of the No. 2 machines the defendants soid to their agents 187 at an

average price of $69.12; cost of No. 2, 45—24.12.

Of the No. 3 m: uc hines the defendants sold to their agents 165 at an

average price of $90.824; cost of No. 3, 60.00—30.824.

Of the No. 4 machines the defendants sold to their agents 8 at an

average price of $150.00; cost of No. 4, 100.00—50.00.

RECAPITULATION.

Item No. 1.—Machines sold by defendants to parties other than agents.

No. 2: 33; average profit, 39. “Hs ksi an wiss> = oer eeiee ~o- 4,201 SI

No. 3: 20): og —_ errr. TrrreTT Te eee ete 966 60

No. 4: 15: 66 6 02-00 ha cha iele cadena cies bss cdg eee Oe

3,638 11

Ltem No. 2.— Machines sold by defendants to their agents.

No. 2: 187; average profit, 24.12. (cvnteeidewebicwwnn ae ae

No. 3: 168: + TS ed ph heh cee ke tee » 9,173 bv

No.4: 8: ” © iinet dcuik Ha cen shia vanwe 400 OU

$10, 089 04

28 George Parks was the financial man of the firm, attending

principally to the office work. (See testimony, Geo. Parks, ans.

to ques. 2, to wit: ‘I have mostly attended to the office work and some

outside work.”)

Parks put the profit s realized by the firm in the manufacture and sale

of said machines at 25 % ot.the selling price. (See Parks’ testimony,

ans. to quest. 7: “I suppose that the amount of profits * * * would

ee about 4 of the aggregate amount of the account [ have furnished,”

~E xhibit marked Defendant’s Account.)

Bp Bee & Co., of Chicago; A. K. Halterman, of St. Louis, & Tedd &

Co., of St. Louis, were agents of the detendants for the sale of these

machines. (See Parks’ testimony, ans, to quest. 13 & 14.)

The machines were sold to these several agents at prices as set forth -

in the defendants’ %@. (See Parks’ testimony, aus. to ques. 12, second

examination.) |

Defendants had no farther interest in the sale of machines and no

control of them after they had sold them to their agents. (See Parks’

testimony, ans. to quest. 15; also aus. to ques. Ll & 114, 2d exaniina-

tion, to wit: ** We had no turther interest beyond the price we charge

them, as expressed in statement, i. e., Exhibit Defendants’ Account.”)

The master is, theretore, of the opinion that the expenses of adver-

tising, traveling, circulars, &c., &e., which the defendant may

29 have incurred in the sale of the 363 machines to their agents

(so called) are not such expenses as should be considered by him

in determining the profits which the defendants made, as shown in the

recapitulation item No. 2. That, inasmuch as they bad no further in-

terest in, or control of, the machines after they had been sold and de-

livered to their respective agents, and as also their said agents were

directly charged with the machines, as shown in detendant’s aecounr,

the master regards all of said incidental expenses (except bad debts, of

which none are proven) as voluntary upon the part of the defendants ;

and, furthermore, if the master were of the opinion that sach expenses

should be considered, it would be impossible tor him, from the evidence.

befure him, to determine how much or what proportion of the expenses

of the general business of the defendants (as specified in answer to x-

ques. 8, G. B. Turner, testimony) should be charged to this %. (See

testimony, Turner, x-ques, 15, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, & 19.)

As. to the cost of manutacture of these machines (Nos. 2, 3, & 4, of

defendants, and the corresponding machine of complainant) the master

is unable to determine with any degree of certainty, owing to the insuf-

ficiency of testimony upon the point. The defendants, if any one, have

it in their power to show what proportion of. their capital is employ ed

in the manufacture of this machine, and thereby furnish the master with

the necessary data from which to compute interest of capital as a credit

to them. They have failed so to do, and, as it appears to the master,

have with purpose avoided such an exposition of their affairs as might

aftord accurate information upon this and other points of doubt. Upon

cross-examination they are unable or fail to give satisfactory in-

30 formation as to amount of materials and labor required in con-

struction, and rest upon an estimated cost as per Ex. Defendants’

Account, while the complainant in answer to ques. 1., examination-in-

chief, says that he has not manufactured or sold machines * myself”

since the re-issue, Nov. 29, 1864, and goes on to specify cost, &e., prior

to that date, which in the opinion of the master is not competent in this

behalf. He therefore reports the cost of the respective machines (of de-

fendant) as stated in defendants’ account, the same being the most posi-

tive evidence upon the point; and furthermore, the master thinks that

in view of all the evidence he is justified in finding that the defendants

) PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH.

in fixing the cost of their machines as specified embraced all the ele-

ments of cost which he would be bound to consider if the details were

before him. |

From the testimony of F. W. Baxter, and others whose knowledge

and experience are extensive in the premises, it appears that prior to

the invention and introduction of the Booth machines there were no

machines in the market which in their purpose and operation were suc-

cessful in the treatment or handling of grain as set forth in said inven-

tion; that in 1859-60, the Vaughn & Booth machines were the only

competing machines in the market (Baxter’s testimony, page 36, ans. to

ques. 55); also that the art was new (page 39, ans. to ques. 58), and the

master is unable to discover that the defendants would have been au-

thorized to manufacture, sell and use other machines not baving the

invention patented to Booth in his re-issue 64, which would have been

successful or marketable for the purposes of the Booth or Vaughn ma-

chines, or which could have been sold in competition with either of said

machines, or that there was any machine of the character and

31 purpose of these open to the public which they (defendants) might

have manufactured, sold, and used with eqnally beneficial results.

Hence the master fails to see the application of the rule urged by the

defendants as laid down in—

Mason vs. Graham, sup. ct. 7, O. G. 833.

Truman vs. Hitcheock, * * © 1055.

Littlefield vs. Perry, ‘ “ “967.

Murray vs. Whitney, 14 Wall., 620, 5 Fish., 494.

Black vs. Thorn, 7 O. G., 176.

Whitney vs. Mowry, 5 Fish., 141.

And is unable to determine upon any separation of the distinct rights,

if such there be, which the defendants have confused; and finds that

the complainant is entitled to the profits, &c., on the machine as a whole. -

To sum up, “as to the gains, profits and advantages which the said

defendants have received, or which have arisen or accrued to them since

the 29th of November, 1864, from infringing the said exclusive rights

of the said complainant by the manufacture, use, and sale of the said

improvements patented in said re-issued letters patent,” the master re-

ports:

First. The complainant is entitled to recover profits, &c., as follows:

On machines sold by defendants to their agents:

No. 2: 187 @ average profit of $24.12 .............<- tin. aoe ae

No. 3: 168 * 6 6 1 Ve is ade wenden ida eoiaisa crane D, 1738 6U

No. 4: S * 66 66 66 8 Roe rent rrr es 400 OO

10, 089 O4

On machines sold by the legitimate personal efforts of the

defendants themselves, twenty-five per centum of the aggre-

gate amount of such sales:

| re a city canta Vist dceesdeseecay Bye Oe

32 | RGR ne ree eT ny ae eee eras

| No. 2: 33 @ average price $84.17 ..........2, 777 61

No. 3: a a |

No. 4: 15“ sc 66 DPE E caonwinnes 2,880 00

re ee ere -- ¢ 824.2 1,956 05

13.043

bey 27 ad nt

_ es . saipthe,

~ SAO eee, Ate a CEE RE ABE er ta) Oe RES AE wd

PARKS ET AL. VS. BOGTH. 17

Booth has collected from various sources as set forth in his

testimony from parties using what are undoubtedly the

Vaugn machines (which the master reports as a credit to

ig. RO Perret hy ee eee jneuaeye tone eee

Total am’t due compl’t on %¢ of profits, &e .-........... . $9,944 09

The master is further of the opinion that the act of July 8th, 1870, is

purely remedial in its application to this action, and therefore embraces

in this report such damages as in his opinion might under the former

practice be recovered at law.

This statement of opinion as to the construction of said act is made

e in compliance with the request of counsel that the basis of the master’s

finding on this portion of the decree might be set forth.

The master reports that the complainant is entitled to recover as dam-

ages his expenses in conducting this suit, as follows:

(NEES: cae Penance n ORE se SON ale ae eC NG aes Wel ec AS 50 00

| spect ee Ni oe LE ae Gs Oe ay rane CS ND ME Res PAR A ET. SY 10 OO

ot ae Ra eee cbt cot eR, Fp ER As ls DE ; 50 00

dP bibs is Ghee Bree be Bias ws ’nes ase eee eee 300 OO

Be Pee eae nA eee eer de gi a atte ee ot 2

sity; BO

Brot forward........ ay a Dian ia fom Cel Ue st nt i i le Pa 147 20

TN NR be re or ho ae ay ar De ad ee 60 OO

ER Terry arte St apa garage Se eae ee ee eS ee ee . 30 OO

' GEE te Sop aoe ge Pee Pn Ee So a ee sata sg im cs Sai ee a 30 O00

2+ ae : PSN a ELA OM : 60 OO

ms (2 4 AL

Jd In the opinion of the master the complainant is also entitled

to a fair compensation for the time he has spent in the prose-

cution of this action.

The complainant in answer to Q. 9, ex. in chief, says that he has not

spent less than six weeks and that his time is worth $10 per day. The

master allows on this item 42 days at 310.00 per day, $420.00. The

other expenses set forth in said answer are not allowed.

Interest on the amount of profits on the machines sold is not al-

lowed.

The master finds no damages other than as reported above.

Recapitulation.

Complainant entitled to recover of defendants as follows:

On machines sold by defendants to their agents.......... 10, UsY O04

<>» On machines which they sold to parties other than their

agents oO Oe 2 82 9 2 ee “7 e8 meee “@eG @e@eeeedeae bee ee ©6464 8 2 ae 2 © lk, 956 OD

12, 045 09

Credit by amount collected by complainant from parties who

were infringing (Vaughn machines) ......... gianaes ics 2a we

$9,944 O9

Ian “9 .

REc. 4, ae

On account of expenses incurred in

18

PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH.

Compensation for time......... cinnkn «seni oes ,

Respectfully submitted.

the prosecution of suit

627 20

420

OU

$10, 901

C. B. BEACH, Master.

Statement filed with master’s report.

BOOTH’S DAMAGES.

The following 16 pages are taken from Park’s reporv of sales.

The

royalty or liceuse fee on each size machine as established by Booth has

been estimated on each machine in the following manner, to wit:

On

On these amounts respectively interest, commencing one year after the

date of each sale, up to January Ist, 1875, at the rate of 6°99 has been

The foot-

ing on each page shows the aggregate damages, these footings being

carried forward to page 17, where the combined footing and total amount

on machines to Jan. Ist, 1875, is found:

computed and added to the royalty embraced in each item.

No.

a

Lind & Bucher

‘ >} . }

Holme Ss & B mchnara

I a Dig Nes i set piu ea had eka

J.

J

I

‘odd Se ese

ae a ial ir tk Cink cab Ab as Sk ab che toe, tas “wea ets ae ae

I’. Shoemaker

Hol So Dblan¢ i re .

a i a i a aa

OP Og SR a eee ae ae eens, oe OE - .

EF, Shoemaker oy ge rey ee ee

Ts Co a ee ee ne See ee Se ee eg ee 2 are

{ I ee i a a re

Todd ER EST SF DO gos SRP Eel AP eR preg OR ORY a SRE fey

i> i Ww { wee eseesce’eoe se ececeoeoeeeeaeasoeeeeOeananencoeoeeueesenevt ee eens es OOo Oee «

Rp SE ne een, SI Se oh em ame eRe eM tery) Mest /Oe PL MME NS Pape eer

EN RAN DAR EEE DADE OF SR Rt SC eae Lee Ee re OR EN Metre pee OG ae

ED TLE OE IEE a ath ca i Net AI ae a oe Sl aig

pF En EES Ee oe Men el nee ee ee, EME eRe eee Pema a

sé ++

a a A oe ee

> - . ‘

I Irs i a

‘

et een eee eee ee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee ee eee | ee

a. a. ae a se oe ee a ee a a a ee ee a ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee

sg a i sh crn Sh ig Slalimiian es sane Tai aed aon kas aaa

John Damp...

ee ee ee eee eee ee

lolmes & Blanchard...............- DES apn aE TAM ete Reece ey LDN eraT Tero

RS REE Ek OMEN AAOL RIL ERR ee Ere Re Bone mee MN eee a

cee wewe ee ee ene een ee eww wee eee wee eee een eee ene eee wee ewe eee eee

“eee eee n eee eee eee eae eee et eee este eneeevseeeeeeunneaneneeee

6—Y

1—4

i—3

i—2

'

tS GO

j

; |

reo wrereerer

we OS Ge Ge 8S DW Ww

“ene eee @eeeeerenereeraereeeneanane eee eee ee wees

| oe oe. lt

WwW tO Oe 09 TS Ge tS Ge 89 2

GO Ge bo Go 2D

2, each, $95.00; on No. 3, $105.00; and on No. 4, $150.00.

639 6:

229 65

160 42

=O 5s

144 9

144 St

159 7

144 34

159 4-

144 OF

Oni 47

aad 3

143 72

316 9]

105 L528

Yo 142 %

105 157 7*

210 315 33

95 142 69

105 157 or

105 157 5S

G5 142 53

190 224 2%

210 314 6

OQ) | 142 33

105 i 157 my

95 | 142 30

105 ; 153 2%

210} 314 09

JO 2, 8&7 44

190 2x4 02

190 283 si

105 156 »9

95 141 Te

150 9090

155 6

1

|

AGanemment ns ~eneniesitaaes

~

—— ee

en Pew bu

Ak a RE ONO

PARKS

ET AL. VS. BOOTH.

Statement filed with master’s report—Continued.

NO eR

see eee evenness eeen ee eee eees eee eees

me 8 aeRO

4 }

as

e - »

~~

em)

“~

s

j

'

|

—"

. ~—

~}

ve

ee eee ware eewe ene eee eee ee ee COT OOO eee

Feb, 12 NN a a Ee a nN ee Pie Map trpee ie

, 17

i =

i

‘

we Ne ete Oe ee

~_

>

- a ©

~—

we

nd

—

~~

pa

—)

ps

P+

Ce

.

—_

we

~

‘

’

.

:

:

*

‘

‘

s

:

‘

‘

'

‘

.

‘

‘

:

‘

‘

~

:

‘

+

.

‘

:

+

‘

‘

.

‘

’

'

> et

i

,

i

t

—_

J)

'

j : Pew. DP | TAO iia docwe Kccncdkcnc Tl Me ie og aaa ed oo ee 19 Om 139 7

woz ‘ $s 7 Sa Oe pe Pree Pe SL en eee 2 creme Se re Caan I— 36) $6 id

Mar. SR ra RE Ce ee ee ee eee uiienieun wth wiles 4 150 197 47

. e 2 f 139 51

'

I

see FS : eeerr ee ENE TS See 1 ee Ce Ae RE Be Pe eee ee oe |<

lj Todd & Co dios Gris aaa ler pla aitadlah ote J.

ts ]

~

tet ee ee

Baxter & ijbdebtdegavebathedeeddedénad dadedeud sAeedbawdad kane ewes

Halteman...... so age i Ne ata ale Go i Gs Paes gett igcet Bite ah anne

Tuly 12 bq. @ 4) ad Ueda a bee én bn eh Wedsidn Ge we sedade ate meas

|

z

ra

>

ane Sabri SUNN,

= rd

. a’ pail

~—_

ie

pend

= (OD— —_

—

peeing

an

~

—

—_

pe e

an

ake ‘

~

’

P

‘

@

’

NS we i

; ]

. 4 |

i

we a iS Ge Go 0D

a ~~) hm 2S

— = — —"

. =

ne OL

’ . &

a >

DS mh

~ oe ‘4

Carried to nage 17 ms aed - : Sn ee eee Leees ee Y 4285 3. 604 &9

Beale

.

Puly 13 FD 7 ee Sg ee a i a a as , 2— 190 2

: 1>..4 eo

2 | iurner A et Bate ce ech ne 7 a ee aidan i "4 i 44

m 2 =

2 lodd & Co rae i 150 if

ae Fe orf Saeed gadelenaianbenranaiemaennaeen tii Tt 55) ,4 =n 2 3

oda Co jen sebebh tb cdeeabwes hs sccaainee , J——"2 ] 74 1

oo Baxter & Co a ee eee “ ; ’ i »

‘ep 5 Herald & M an AS eS aE Te ae j i L } ; 4]

vf -

i) uitemal ae beoweed eeindn . I— J } .

P dialdudelawen t

j i I i ae a “a ig cba aa a aaa - io3 Os

|

4 5marveyvy XS " ed ai a a a a te ee al ee es ri ‘ |

4) Hialte 7 : ! . 4

“4 i ‘ Pack waa eeeudwa i

los {i w \ al a i - “ fat all - i es sci Stn ls diet ia et oe. ata aks ean enaii aaa | 4

‘ . t HRS >

f

4 [X66

‘ ct ‘ B ‘LO _ iio ‘ < ;

i ) >'

; . ’ - + eeeuvneeeaeeeeeeseeneaertaneeneeenaeanes - / 2

| l3 Todd tiksoee ca tn sa ie ae cu tele ey be tn Mane rua raed wa L C

'

= ‘

} lo Halten I ait ewes a KUREROCEKBECES REL 68s b KOE OS RES ~ WU

si LT .

Hiarvey & Soms...... sine tcmiawdicnenwewiawe |1—.5 l i

9 $84. ae. eo ees . y : . 3 1 ]

O4 " - 2 a 107 RR

-..-) ‘> ' a

» At Haltemal cwoaeceoeees o esac e eaeeeeeones eee te ~ ~ Lo 271 i+

t ’ , } S a,

SE EG di divine uk eu ee dineeeen dee uae 1—2 135 &

; . 7

WON 24). Baxte) \Y OO ae ee ee ee eS . Sere + “ rn , Fe 210 9909 53

‘

Lay ' road & Uo... 2 bttbatba dene e tvntaadadeeanadd — oil Ms qu

Haltem bn "eeenreee#eeeea@erekeeeeeee#ee#eeee . = - — *- oe ©eweeseee#-« a= mw if pas pe $4

. .

Dee ; ée ‘ , : oe oe! DZ, 190 270 62

» .

} SE SEIN cc aid wacadataate wuwlaa as seane stesiise 1—2 SU 42

i2 odd & pektaiedhia ‘ ‘é1gnncuabhnnee . ‘ ion meee l—J LUD 149 44

1~66.

Dee 23 Halteman..... he eee aa Wk eee bees bee ane J—3 315 447 72

Jany 1 gs "gb ee ieee eee ' cebbehadndsaaseaseaoue seoce! BG 190 2605 #0

; ‘i + ath he ET a ee ae ees PPT arse NE TE tee. SAY, ST Dall 210 298 20

Feb. oa: & 2) See Se a: ee ee iene ae soos! Ol OR5 403 09

, Dy See Ee Si ctiier nbn ccc bees sécns es desea senses wnessanase eeenet 1.2 JIE0 O37 00

' oe SE ee ae ee pe a ea eee steal anhaahdinitt ah ork hap aicadolboa ob dh ciel al ; i—%3 420 093 33

Mar. v Allen & Co..... eeccee aa aé¢eahdetseakeenenoesd Sa re co EES iene [= 1A) i] 30)

D. Lind & Co. . )>

TE tet oo Hc ececoscesosococoos ss mgmimegaT “a Ss CG .

CE hihi hie | et

Go sini tices nchcicteaiabahc les aie e iam nb baianiiee. oo SB .,

F SR ENO ORE SEER SSOUTS CST SR RSE A SOE Te Tee eee ee

‘

aH} 8 2

LL

te vive dad wes cascusecee suceseSeGescencscevescccescbeeesess<O we eee e

Ch i : [ty eee Se Saas 7 PI be ‘dag

—- “eevee ece “*#- - ~_eeeneeeereeveee eee . ra IS

sae es alk i a

{ KMedbhs+ tn eco Ona s SO ae ONS ERO CRResesodsHiads if

Peat et ae a Toe eee ee ee eth toeinata te Raalamenre meets)! yy I9IXed (ots

ote es aia ts co ia as SESSNES ao SSSFSEAISS SS OBESE HOSS OS EDO FERNS Oe ri ouy

— ig | eee ne] tee e en eww wees cemmemereer neces ss seseesssseryr GSR 0} POLI)

ao T6G GC & ” aay

en Ra ae eSSSCeeceSeeSeseSeeSeSeSSseeeeGseoeceeeeGssaeseeaeaeseoasvese 4

co CEI C6 1 oT coe eee ewes eee ear see Beeeananssree eee eeee SEBS -

28 Sos Och } Som Perera r ee eee eee aay, »y PPOL 9 -_*

Hh GOS 0 ad } le “eee eenrees OO'SO DS SHOES 8I6S64D SE 64 SOH44 OL SESHSEORIRDO STEED eee OT ‘sny

-

es

~

on

N

-

a

”

«

r

"

OES LE ADL S SR ERES AS BOSE ES ES EF OO EF OST OTe eee WY JO} XE Lf

oseer+re eee eee naeeneaeeaenaeeneeneraaaeune

-

_

—_

~~

uD

-

aa

er)

ae

;

|

~~

nm CY

nace ee cece ee neces ences eee wet geese csesseeeessessssrO) WY DPOL

ee “ss 06 jSeceseeressecssesceesscsetes es i is 3 Ps,

eeercecesessecseeeeseseees $RPDG 40:40 505 9 ba6 08 hee ERA ee ‘Ss z c

a“

at

ue

~

~~?

ae

°

coo

ot

aS

_

vo ON

“—

PL

_

ov

—_

~

~

~—

NG

|

Pet oe

ra CCR, 06 | we oORS SO SOO HSESEOESSS BECCOS eS eseresssocsoocooeoossaseeel Gry @ Jegnee } Li

© 26 eo@meeer*eese##eeeens#hkhieee#teeese#e# & eoeeeeveeeenwe@eeaeeaeeeneeevreeeee?

’ ~ ee » ; ‘eee athe saith ayia e* ** aD.

o aa a | on Cec madccescocsocccccocessocesccescococsccccccocscsscsoo oT Bien i LT vurlf

't £Co ) Sg, 2 RTE EET caer BC aes aS eR aarp eee egy ent

6. OCP clt F _* fe « eeeee#ewee#ee ee eeeceoaceaeee eee e esse eeaeeen een eeee een aeeeeaeeeaee ee GZ ;

T2 £C% O68 u—% ee ees

nC ar. ee eet eer eee ere eee ee een oj y 191x¥q CI AVE

FF ROC Oxt G "20R8]

eas : eee eccs caccenr ens ccoscersccesscossosssrQBnEnIvg FY YOIMIENM | 9 AW

Se Oe nL ee Le a ON SSS SeSS F9 SS ASSO a eee | ae ¥a OL ,

ESS ee poe ee a ee eee ») IAGTX BS

.: i r4 ~ ’ PEs gee eee a ; “S ;

Ui <s OIG cea eeeneeee eeeceseenereceeenesn tae eenes eeseeeneaeneeeseneene . UvieyeR f iv

OF ERG OlG CPA AIRE SN esata TR

0S U t “ee 8 --« - 7-7 ee © *“e*eee#e ne ©*#f ee @ © *-* “7 coeweeeeetees "ox ) \) ppoL : ,

21 9ce CG Go a ip:

OF Lat Cre ot ;

70 ORG OG Sua i eoeesy: rte Eig ae Re

=o ECR 0: ene a — |

coe O% if » as eae ee = ras . eeseeeenecunees — ae ee ) x pxeg

15 O&G O61 ce

6

- ‘ ie ‘i . e- .- — o-- - ° sees eos = Sed oO] PILL )

t. gst: :

: _ “ses éeeeneeeeeaeneeeve a - “ee “-“- ---* oeeeseee oweees rc "AON

A eee eenee#neeee eee 7 ee enee ~

C—T] “**# #- o-* o«- -

~ I eee eeseeaeees * oes eee eee “eeeee oeeoeee eee “ee k 61 139

o 5 » ~

C—* “eer eeeeesneaeenen eee eoweee “es eeeteeeewewnesee es ee my . Layxvg IG y

= = . “ee ne_eeneneeeee - *- eeneneee oeeeee “ee « . rT ,

'—2, seeeeseaeee - eeerece eeenee ° Seeqagcaeacoaoonesn eee 2 @ ory ) ppoy CT

«* Pees ee eecaeaeoeee eee - “- - e- -- eee -- sy ey loyxVegd r¢ avs

se - “es es - 7 “ee reeeneee ae

— eeeeseeeaes eee ° ° eco os re ‘

(- © a Sa aah necoeeceseeneeee@ sees “sseeeeeeeeewneee or) ey ppoL LY .

ae Panes: ; d

snl “re ag eae ee er re Tr ed te ee oe ee 09 \ LOU XB a ee:

QCaanh? eesesen 64 eee oe eoecerseuneeee oeeces — ees . ee oy as ee Hi ouy

: M ; re ’ : si ote ve sate is son CO S084 >* Corot ee UG

pied tateanCbenetiucas ene 4 wee serseeressse99°QON DD PpOL rT Ajup

—_ (eS sansnaen dsc roaetpnniaxennne donswiiele he alma Nae tle

rl StP alt ae ‘ RSA AAEEARE SS OE OF SECM SOARS See 0)» PPOL , re

061 Cs | Leann seccacccecsccccesecesecccccsscoocccscocesso=-TUMOTICH | ST 5:

a SOROS Ne + AeEAEN eT EMERReRA Ne RSENS SE Cee » Vs pod “A I ABH

‘panulja0g—pioda4 s.tagspum ypin pay puawmaznis

‘HLOOdD ‘SA “IV Lad SHaVd

It t¢

cc ZL

GL Gl

QQ tr.

cz 9

it 3!

> cy

CO ¢

,

SD whe

~G if

1] A

i

<3) 7

; bis

i? '

,

~~

5 .

tw

\/ ‘

12 ; ’

i ¢

> on

mm fe

= }

VW) f5

a

| ae

Q2 O

——

<* .

, t

‘panuljuog—joda. s.4ajsvu YR pa

“eee - “-

ese eee #8 ew BO es “se.

. onenee -*

oeeeeeeennanee - .

- - ee ewes .

oseetwerer ee eee - -

--* eee ee ee *-* -

oeeweeeenenenene* »

e

— o*#- . ° -*,

- “-+s ee ee -«-

osee een ee

“H.LOOd “SA

— +

’

~—

"IV

“* -

“ere

La

=

~

=

_

cer

~—

wet

ete

wevereres*"Gdipua ASL

‘ines seeee Se eee ee

“«** #8 “*** jUDOR] ‘SS

sok sesceconee>-DgUE ‘C

rT oovd 0}

‘* $5

eheditiadacieel 8 \)

. eos er eee-

Me ,

eevee {QTM

° - vile glad an | |

’ apea oO] IT | )

e e aT ‘ry *R

<8) Tan

de om i“ <a ss

wrwrte

. se .--¢ acy oO ‘1

4 ;*

ees . > . ¢

. a . ‘ } \ pro y

pee see@oewes > Dre

Ory VY PpPped

- - ‘' ) ’ LOpXP El

er eeer cree Cod FU

i¢] [

“-* - *- “> ) \ i) bq

° ees sit AT wa * fa

tid S&S 1

=< . ’ rarxra

: ) ’ AI LACT

: gin eek i i T | ‘)

es Wid “S “£

ie Da ,

LI eo ad Oj po Liv’)

Par shins aT $7 a

sheoserere*@ry D> J00KU

_- 0609?" 20, a

eoocoeross=--*TBUIO}CH

yf quaawaznyy

SMUVd

I

uvwsy|BH

wD

Zn oe PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH.

Statement filed with master’s report—Continued.

Apr 5 3 ible & Hight...... ne RN ae eT ee EY Sid er ey re a A {9 95 110 60

™ ss a I oc a ta aes ea = 95 110 60

ty Sten ee a CE pa nee ar em NAR Ome eps 3 ip: acta aiienss .| 1.2 95 110 60

Mordyke & Co....... SS Fae MORI a tig BRT oe Pw Si yy BE iin eta th nk an Neral tan ates 1—2 95 110 60

ee 8 | ee eee eee rian welbped lowenea 1, 500 1, 823 46

12 {16} | Omissions admitted by Mr. Park on revieu

1265. ;

Nov. 10 W.Gardner...... A ee a hamie baa ea dee eee pecce! se 95 141 46

1~66

Sep. 19 | Baxter & Co........... icChiniealaemiiwialp ena ae re wee coos) 42 380 2416 00

Oct. 20 Warden & Barnet. sb idite mead wig Sad oS ans ad a ce Cia en 1—4 150 214 77

1267

Ee BE be a ee os jnkce inn teataiaiont 1—4 150 208 73

ee ee eee cinviceknbeie Lene ween ss ea eee 3—3 315 433 13

Oct. 11 P ae bk ce Radic dads i deeenie te eeieak aeons 1—3 105 144 20

£ Oo I a ee —.5 105 144 O01]

1868

Sep. 25 | Holmes & Blanchard.................. Spey am Carer eee RE Sy pee ies ts oe 1—-2 Q5 125 01

~, OF}. Be. Tee. ccc: bi catia GT ae age ee eg ee one LE 1—2 95 124 98

1870.

Ic Ve Pa lc 0 le inca paki abana eka aah eran aaeais j1—3 105 126 3%

I oo bebe ees as a a eT ai l1—Q O5 113 10

Nov. RRR SIE RR rae eg ares cave tye PUNE Raye LwPy ws RT 1—2 1D 112 91

1871

Apr - Gall ir Mil ee fe eee ee ee ee eee ee ee ee Pe ee ee ee ee 2—4 300 34™ 10

Carried to page] ies gus lohtiieds 2, UR 2, 782 71

ele TOR: Oe Ei civ bnidwsdn bncicavanresectednde ss awdeounensasenns as 2, 920 4,450 03

a i Gs gk cra ae aa as Ws a etn aw oe a a ae ak 1, 925 2 &x7 44

Ss einen sede ean s wanbink bead bene meee anid a 1, X55 2 T5l 24

a aaa ie wien Ghee ate ee a aoe ere ls Sea ee 9 48D 3, 604 8&9

I I a a bl cbvan din Us’ doves asp. lpap Gdns Wan cares tei ae nee 2, 685 3, 870 50

Na ee A eee te 2. &10 4,016 &9

ee Sa ee ae webbie ka wwe cee ee eet 3, 520 4,945 9x

ee eee re ee Seer REN Bern tarot Clea fsa Pcbe 4 VAP N ee 3,105 4 2x1 16

Pe ete Gre es nein BUS we eS ah ae ee es toons 3, 285 4.439 33

ad ip illen sed Cosies Gasman tas ora ani anita Nara aetna 3, GRO 5,291 62

Tacs dwaisindinn Geet i. ond Cees eke ok cab Bene aia ate 2, 720 3, 582 32

Te ca to Rh be bakadieabs Unies sabe ae heen g?, 805 4,912 &7

Db ckiuh ckcnalnd MAGdd bp Kee OS ee eee eee oleae 2 795 , Jie 3S

Ree Ute he ee ee este ieee Rae tee Pe OMT ee EURO Freep p an ye eae ee 2, 560 3. 063 68

a a ne as a on lie a reg av gables a eo eee i. Son 1, 823 49

ts cen his rk oo Me ee ok Ke eet Meee eeu os alee ee 2. OxS 2 722 Zi

43.790 60,182 73

Damages up to Jan. Ist, 1875 (estimated on machines only).......................- 60, 182 73

43 [Page 22.| Parl’s report.

The following pages, including the 38th page, is a copy of Park’s re-

port of the number of machines sold and prices of same, since Nov.

29th, 1864, up to this date, to wit, the closing of the proof on dam-

ages, May Ist, 1875, before C. B. Be ach, of Clev -eland, as master. The

footing on each page is carried forward to page 59 where a combined

footing and total amount of receipts for the same is found. On page 40

is found the number of No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4 machines, and a total

amount:

[93]

| eed |

i

1865.

ee Re Oe Sn rade Geds ciel necbedbscesnubnenetdetscosteneaenavetssscbnatanes Com 2 360 00

Feb’y 13 “ Fa eae aie Ue ing 320 00

“ Neel oe as i pebaw ee enlcsweu = 200 00

Mat a oe See es aainened bbws deneieaaauae 1—-3 97 50

‘ 20 | Baxter & Co. ...cces-- SN Sn Pc Se eT Ce PO en OE a Te RE en CeO aE A {2 2=0 00

“.- 38 tom Damp LpeCUi ben Montvushee bleed eds Sede cedenedens checdes cebtesesatesnake 1—2 100

a te a a si ein atlas ha cdenesnd FObeb Rater bad hb hanbaedareeate 1-2 70

0 ae et ee ae ee

PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH. o

i a a P ,

Statement filed with master’s report—Continued.

<

1845

Apr. 2 | Toda & Co...... ai I a a a ye ee eR Te eee RE Oe fas MU NPS Ne 0 ll 90

May ©) ar Ns dis anWaad dich desine hahha os owbiwipietedbie abeekobbaddenseamams ~| 1—2 100

— DE re Stee me See ee eee a eR ern ees = 97 50

oi 2.3 CE i a a ls a Pt ale a pMédhatiweenben ne | 1—2 iV

FD. ae + ee Ge Siicicib se Weta daknd sd dactendt hb Uanetidisce dent ee eee o—2 140

' Se Or” pth hes dee eked dae ee bide de eee Sle mad i a ea ae ehiatarehaee 2—.3 1x0

LEEPER SEED EO, LR ss ais! as est tesa Sian aioe ak ane | 100

uly ie fh rere re és eid disadebie wa car esata: echt eta ale at bea eure eee ) 120

CN Oe NS Bee hk ce ccbdianedncenns idem heiuheasea » 385 |

{ 24)

1865.

rn Ei i re ee Be ds Laie Des GN seh thr Sore oa = 00 00

J RRS RF 5” ReaD ON ase aCeT BNR re eae ee bie Sh te neh ie ee a a j._..2 70 00

= : "Cr |" sail leek tek tach ak ala lecak ar wet aN teach Gl aaah wae sa eats lk a as os , = 4)

16 ” MP aig a seria Pirate dec. Pr Ee Ee eee eee Dee rae 9.3 180

BG TE ere re ee ee eS we Nene mew Pe Rey eae Meee ie Sa Bee : 1—2 70

19 " a RASC MED Por mNN ONE OS, Mes he RON Se ne PEE eee ee ee Ree ee eR Se Renae Me EN 1.3 90

‘% 26 | Baxter & Co........ a OO Oe ee ee ee ee Oe EE Rene pa ae mee | oe 90

" ae | SOO onc ccd wnea ceseiwa OY Pe eR OTe aE PS Oe RE ee eas 1—2 75

Sep. i 6 SEIU re EO Ce ee ee CER Ae Re SCORE Oe AC ee Mere ae eat oes | Damn 140

te “is fad ee EE PE Se MEE ES fr rhe IN eg VR Rh Pe CR MO ew RTE gs EL ete EX ROO NL EN le FS ~~—<J 120

ae woe ee ie a a a a a ah a ke 1.2 iD

ph ae re Ne Ee aE TONES Fe Pe eh ee ey ai : ‘ ‘ — 100

ca | 2S Ss eatin des ea hats o étaria eh dK hd nh dd cha mda dénie 1—2 70

BE ag le MY a ie aaa OS eS le LT a aL lke eee ia ]— 3 GQ

: a he ee ana tabetha ach laste i lablow Wk sed hs nite i's boa Bree ee Be alee Fas aie 9.3 120

Carried to page 39... as Ghibcakwéeebsseoeeelehonee 1,590 00

,

Oct. 2; Baxter & Ce. .....+<. le aa a ea a ; 22 140 00

; Y a 2 EEE TR Ts AT Maia EE 3 REN Ee AO Te OS NT Pe ee, ee ee ) 140

1 NS oe, Ue ewe eekuauen : ‘ eee er Tee — 100

: a) 2. Sn si cke clea wae ded ok chante sehaeh anameemaae ames lise iat i—2 90

Nov. 7 I 0 i a a j_.4 150

RR Ga ep a ee Senne ee tyes nm ete Re ee ae wee re eee ee ee Rey Smee emer epi )...J 100

m Be a I i a Ne Pe TG Tee EN =". 70

; = ig i a aa RR A a re et a a Se ae es ‘ 1—3 90

L266.

Jan. 3 a oO FORE ES eae Re ee et nL TEN a 3.4 120

- 1] EE EAE a Pree Rt Oe Le Deed FOU Te ie it 100

16 Bf li cia a a a a a a a a a dd i =>. io

Feb 12 I a i lt a Bm AN ae REPT SRP Eo S R ege ROP ee ge May By es | 180

Be | ie SOO Ge BN, dckuncdbveen dese wbadadacdsdes deccddbaweeebs j ....} 100

20 Holmes & Blanchard......... POL Ee A ee PO I eR RET ee eee aE 1—3 97 50

Carried to oS See SE RR pS Pw 1,612 50

45 [2

1266.

Feb’y 20 Halteman SERN eT SLR RIOR Tee a Ce EE OER SN AN ERE Sm phy Ree A 1-2 7:

a & 5 Ee Ae Aer aga Pe LN ME OY POE ne le So CRS a eR AL iy args J— J 300

Mar. I eS, PI i a ee ee amné se ea een ee eel 1—4 200

Pe. ics = a ch i ela ba kale d ae eee aneed j...9 ts)

. 17 NU a a a a a Be ERS a ee ees : cewunet Sone G0

-* ys). es ON a Cte dh dita eee ke Pee dW ade ddd Oh Vdd hbvakectiecctieddéiedade eee j_ 3 90

ROO, TE | FORO ove cecidercutdcdtdccdsdcscscsins i at ia taal stkhiananedine 1—2 75

s 19 ar ee saasddiaaded adidas iwedscndeladtdae ta 1-2 io

ait ff 2 tee tome NPimiid dk kidat edd cabal baletata x div iain idk cite ee ee 9...) 140

sé sé bi Qo. 9 ~{)

ee | Se swear ice ar wero ewes neleln car vice jee wile' date dbata ciacuea sis athena 2 3 200

June l wee ee afl tofu eteitiee tl awa ital aataitcd vale Cada ncaddal deediiabisdbeaeiawan Q...2 150

ih & ET: BS Circ ewettiditdiindntivddddddidddaddiddetdéatsbbdcddadetads 1—3 40

= Be? , anutince ade ddldawe wehbe wedadeCalae ddestaanadd die Webbie t- cau tails = 300

ee eS ee ee ee pads ban 2—3 130

LE Gg "ES a EO Oe ENO ECO gn, eee ae) yey Renee Is ras PE Ree IT ee 2—2

21 ' Turner & Pettitt..... Re a ACT ee Tee LOR SE erm YO eT SR e yaee 1—2

aig 7 I at a A le a See | er 150

Aug D1 Se Be Gikcadodicsd cacons ia scsdllsinlnh Rhasiniiah Sk sto a tneo'bs iin to qrediio as ala ao da ail nce 2——3 150

" 4 » Es SRE Pa pen nie in Se Me Aaa ae A eR MRR GSN eM Up ace feo ) a 120

. ‘* Halteman aera pe es ER eee PO Ne ENE OMe eee OMNIA ere The 2.2 150

" RE TREC EINES OY Pea T Ee OE Ome AR Re EN Tn SM IS lee El Nk ae 9.3 1-0

" RM ON 8 RS Eee OPN ie RENE SO a Oe me ee ER Oe Tee eT ee i : 9.2 140

1—2 ri

“eee eweee see eeeeaeeenereenenee

24 PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH.

Statement filed with master’s report—Continued.

Sep 0 Herold & Mortz............ Se ee Lee fe ee ee ee re

a a a gm Re Mere By ere

NRE REE CME ara a eee Mea Ce my Pil cere EE RNS Renee ss re ee ee

de eR a rere eens, alee ee Nieata i ht Gb lead be ks alias esa artes an asda anal

29 Todd & Co.. PO! Reena PT IO RN Py ee Ee ee SN ee eS

Halteman ...... Sintane Gwe lew aie me e vn arangle ea aaah ewes ee en ere ee ee

Carried to pace Re Rp eee eee . a

4 28 ]

“6H

Ox EOS a EE ae ee aC nee ey nae Oe ea Dn ee eae rae a

Pepe Ee ane

13 EE 2. oe RIE Ce mee een ae a een Eee HOMME ET ee Pe PORE eae Lee SF ee te eee Ras yD

15 lia I a a a keke ca ee Od aa ped ke tee ga ene ea ioe eet aia ooad

aes a eee pe: eee NEO SN ey fetes ama. Nase MMe ANE saa HVE er Sie FY aT

J) LE 8 Sy eee nae ene Ler an. eo eee Pe Ma ET NG ae Gee rr Ne, oe yn

. — Ql Sear e ee ss ac aac a sve in a as aca peas eek ea ae ae ec

N 22 «~Baxter & Ce Ss”: Sk ah sik sw Da Wa irl dS lacs sk rcs i api avd Sarasa aks es det se

23 |S” ARREST ep apey gerne eee Peay y sn me ae SURE Ee NTR ae Ip Senn RV ads MY No

riaite al ere ee ee Ce ee ee re ee ee ee ee eee

j eae cee ists Sela sc tts alll Sa te ees

| B Ai A C4 ceoasececesneaeeeeeaneene eeeeaeneces« eeeesereeesenceccs cen anseseeneeese

< Pod he a age Te Teas eal fa Sten i Ak Ss Wa “DORs ws DR Db Ok st Tn dn dl pide lens nk a ie Ca

( page ee ME LEED ET a ae ee Ty Re ee ogra EE IN TE TE a) ats 8

:

7

Dec. 23 Halt SERN edly RAT ce lickcaaa’a: can eal deal ast ga ee

~07

a ? ] b> VT ra to ee a eee ee nd Te ln Se ge ee ey a a ey ee ae es - -

| he Todd — £30 ioe oe SPeeetcoeeesese esses eceeesceoaebecocscecouseaesesesed

] ) ] XT¢ a a a Nace aoa la ta apy Sap lvls apts Wh dale ls Abb Sas i a tore ke a ts le hh sna oT cae en i eae

Halten TLYerrertre? CTrLtrerifet?et Te eaceereceaeeaorvrsenaneeceeasees

Man eas ass es alg ins = sai a Naan pang nal) kk, Gags ae am te

21 I a ae eel ei Sa

May i Barren, Dodge & Cu sa le a i oh te eee ee SN ED ge eS See a ee

i> Halteman A ne ape ae of oe, ee ee se a apa tO ego ee ee OPS sae as as chee ota :

Oi go Pe ap ye yrisse Ws fore : iit J fis Sb igre ve las tek - ee Hee ree eye

I oO a a aE GSS Mi ee on noe

4 i)

4

imo é

’ she , _

July 22 I a inh eid ces ahh dhl dh tail: cdma anal iene ek ede A ks wee ae

m) uiten 0 eseces secs ° eeccseveesccece Seeeeerereranseees

>) : ‘

odie ] Lx bel \ Co eeeeee » - “sees - “eee e- see - -- “seneeee

; +

‘ t i *e ewnenreneeeeeeeeeen se ef eeeeneeeneenrnseneeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeetheeeeeee#e#e#e ee see

‘

SPSesee Ss: cesses eseeerescesea se eeeseneseesese eases Seeeeevececseagess

DD ee I a aka Dt hl a eh 66h Jb sl Gash cpl D csr is apea tancew tca et e

<

COS ees See seSSSFseesseeeSeBS seaeSeSseesseseeseseensetexneaseseaseeesr

11 | c- (%,

: 2 UM WU comes e cee eee eae e ese seeeeseseeseeseseseeseness eseenes eeec* ee

. |

f ea to pact POC CLE ee scab as es rina Salita ak ali tek eck tea rapa

".

>

as >

+c | Baxte ‘ Co Seer eee eee F Seas seers eeeseeaesSestseeaseeerseeesewaeseesseene

*

LICE iS So ied eee ee

COer ese ee eerseseseeeese Beane eseseseteeeseunseeeressasecoean ooee

3—3

3I—J

2...<i

j—.3

1—3

Dina

1—2

;

Pt tS WWW

hm a

3

ee

—

) >

vo JD

=

3-9

4-2

i—3

~e ~

‘> A

— -?

»)

~~ ~

6) .

ne J

‘ ©")

3—3

) ‘2

©

j3—3

©

se

6)

)

‘

Woke WOMW OW Rr RWW

21

Al |

$0

LLOQ

&)

140 00

140

120

PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH. 25

Statement filed with master’s report—Continued.

i

- ¢

shew

see eee een eeeeaneneeeaeaeeeeneer eens epee ee een ene eeesrseene SO eee eee eee ee

PRE EEO ae eee ae ee Sa i a

Cea. a. a eee aN Rey Se NG ee ae Te yea) Le ol SOR eS Ee eg eee y= tien ho okuw wee

i

!

°

|

i

we CO WO WO 0D @

bea

z

=)

’

to

I

]

2 AY ft Se eee jes eve déendeasucete soduceeas< peweeaese

> | }

Halteman..... I aL i i a le cele eat 2— 2 14

eR OP ee on ee ea ete Pree ae ha agen CCN FEN S Pee RP aN Pee icaades 2—J3 I>)

; i

Todd Ri I Sa os BS wa a A il po od 2 lage sae ie poy Shane = 2 - i —+4 150

i TI Ae ee hs eh ae i Na EN ey i a re a ee a pare i—4 ~aJU

? > mm i)

Kove BR oe enn ree ee ee a ee ee et ~ uN

ri r ‘ ht +}

passer & GO isnditadccas ai comic: Jo ood wala cob aateebs aes 2

. L 1:43 00

ian 256 350

4 kK. Halt i Z aad Diss PER een Sai, (coh fat as 5 —4 1 +i )

» al

I 8 a a a a os eee ; 2— 2 13

J. L. Mille aus i a aa ae ee ee [9 100

"OGG Ge 430... oo ccs Sd dl aa aa . Ee eee eee im a

Se tee }$—.} }

J. H. Snanliding...... NERS ee Rr am OE as Pe MoE eRe } «<j l

oa ee eS ee eine eel m . ae EEE lS ; 9!

is ¥ 2) Pewee ae Bh i a a a ee ee j...-2 2R()

i . ‘ a a Na er dick ai dar di dena Gane t——.}> mie

Haltemar a ae ey ene Pe, Ne tr P ) on 140

L‘o Be es acne bs a : l—2 if

Cried Ge ome OO ok ac kcndd co cc ncccndsweddes ddeve Goxcexes tees eee 3, 145 00

Halt | } 5 2 . Pe era Re oe Lo eee ~—,.) i> CM)

Baxter & Co... . Sp ee = 256 50

‘ , 12

- “ss “*- - eeeeeeeneeneeaeeeee eeeneeene - <r hy sv

tintin " Sata c idea ie oem iked beet ae ee a. 199 50

iv dd * Co “eee5uxseseeee#ee«e «&ee*ee#eseeee#e#e8e*e*#ss*# e#ee#ee#®#e#eeees8se_eeeteee@ee#ee#eere*e#e#e#eFefe#e#enrm@etkgi#Feg5qe#ee#se«#e#* « — ]—-% '

Halteman RTE SN A SME ERNST CO eT e a LUMEN A Ra Ree Ped see a PR 1 ...g 9

4 ‘ 1 <4

Baxter ¥” Co eee ee er ee ik ier ck ae as a ao ae ae Kus eCeeebe OON668 460 OSCE CO awe t{—— 4 ] }

Pritz & Weirsheimer...... : a Pa I Ie ee ES nani lane 100

Baxter & Co seeeaeeoesoscesoeooeeeeesee ‘ SES OSSSSSEOSSEESS ECSERESECEBO OC SDEEOCC CHEE — ] ’ yy

q . ryt ‘ ‘ 7 > 7

Ss. S. Thompson ...... 2... RiRbbn sees Ubentédabeneseeer iddbéubdewanw ed Qumuee l—3 Ls

a | «} 2? T=

eee ees i ee ee sk wile be be Glace ds be eae dee tee 2 to

Ch, Eh SO ne cccsvecs be tle aaa ag utwebébetueweue (abode sonveetsevacdaen SeGREOEI

HMeaiteman ...2.-s-. Nas bkbo encod a aewactebebsatane teak Gin adad: oon i4

ixter & UO i sc in ah a a “gaa A os ae Ws oleic cm cad Gor ah ea eal oot wie i . 2 bade

sind er acid ad dara aan aed ab atmiatenaad Sawa eames re F 7 2—%2 L353

(‘ay miro nacts +e “ 174 {

' =" - eee ee ee °- - onenene e+e eee aeees

B Co s r Pee eee eee MA he Meee ries eee) 4—2 206 00

> > OO &

pastes aalale ac ee apie Awes tinea sense aan 2 19

. A000 ~ 4)

--*- ore wewreeeaeeeaeeneen nen ew aeewweeneeae . oeeee eeneeeeeeseecaneaee a $32 ae

; ; 256 30

wecaaw " ele wa cepceoebadeenre cede chebwas eae

To Cs octce-tadsnae inka ib ab aie waaieleeaas satiate j—3 270 00

(ip wbbiwe Hetwebbnd éébucabnd edntaseedbeadeesaee see 6—2 4220

ae = ae .)™

“ese @#eeneeex«ee# @#¢@ -* _*eeeee#e#e8see# « « 7 , - *

ee er ee eee ee eee ere er ee eee fe een ee | ) Ht

Fe COON bk ccbbiddsicdax: Wekeweeaddiekdiedcdtlecsndaedeeees 1—2 '

e 7

4 '> ry’ ‘é “) 4 =

oe | eer Pe ee ee eee ee me tidédnkidced Lacbeetewes hon at — 156

vitted ele bates ea Pe ey ee pahiiswe ine nes : , 2—— 3 Loe

. *y =

er e . : soeee ee a ee ee i—oJ is

> 7

Da Cl fh Fae ee eeeaeee eee aee eee eoswesceeee omeseeeoeeneseeseaet eee |—4 Lot

és ae *) } ,

’ gadéed ude cibidevlddateetaLedaw tes sea —2 LYY of

f ‘ , ' : ~—(34 ()

i eci tO pag Serer seta Gl daatese teak aa i ctiaen S t |

» 4

Baxtet oy SE « ee e een eceoeneeceuese ° - ° — 4 ,

: twee ? | ) mf}

I.8 S DEE Ty 6 6 6 Uw oa cee SO 6 SSE Oe BESO Os CHOOEHOC EOE Sbheceecenseeese a i—s« {

Be > 1o-

aia 14:

I SU a oa eine ee siaileb lahat sitoikiihshins thai! <A lineata

>

I es nt im so

a EST

My

i ssh neigh peice Laelia Iter a 7

1~69

," lg ~

")

“eT ot}

er 19

‘

) : ‘

‘ Y i

Mat é

PARKS ET AL VS. BOOTH.

Statement filed with master’s report—Continued.

“s*e eee eeneuneewananane

i le a shuns hsatanicsidalinie:dks ideale Ss salliedilag ad aniitaltscdiae

Baxter & {

" 2? ’

7 a a rr a orga ee INT eT SON Ret ied a ae

é éé

“eee eeerenennenee

eowrten eevee een eeewae

enue eene ee ee een en ewen ease ase eeee ease eeteaneaeeaeaeseae

EEE OPO ta ee Rana Ye pe Der Meet llone ahaha

Mordyke & Co

LD! j I a a fa Papas Meenas ee yes Se tity ote ail

Vay 14 ERT ERs oae en aa) Nh Ae Gea el ATC ee

ul ys Fr a a en el ee Sr ee eee ee

Bk RT TRG IGN ac ener er tern ree nee on Tee ea ne

13 J. L. Roberts...... GA SNA ERS SF pen D: COLO mE oe ELE RNAS ae To Guides sae nnkaeka ets

Carried to page | ee oe ee er re ee ph oom eww ae bin bain aie a mee

. . . 2 . . 4 7 : i y a . 2 ‘

re Qo Omissions admitted OY MY. Park on review.

1=66

me PD.

Uct.

1287

A bi

Tone

<2 7

{j)cT

L168

‘0 7)

i

LS 70

Oct

No

ane

127]

ewe eo ew eee ee wm tre we ewe ee eee ee

Gardner, W

Baxter & Co .....- i i cack sa ct ses apa Ub Sa ana NA sana are ae

I i sa i nee beak

“eee een ene ewewm eee eee enews

ee oe eee is rcs is sina aa te kc A tga ad og ak ges i ae ee

ae es eee wis es ibe eae Wee bl ae eanee eine ances

I as ee iumiak Geaediiaes esp abkkieebeseaees

I Ne ae ae Bde ede Boones

G. B. Turner. «> i a a el a ella A

ere ai ia aia beg i ai a sid aie eR dill ala ke ane ee

Todd Oe le EE ey ee ogee eos ee _

Holmes & Blanchard........... cin etihhivdbh idence ere aes

Galle =

Bro't from page 23........ pwoscenccces padvecccbsavecavesswarsoesesnionssoe’s

‘ ‘ ‘ 9

een eeeeewanese eae e ees eneaneeneeeeeene-s

Gwe ceaeeeeaed eeeaesceeesa Bpescexevoeesee ones eesese ese eseeaenece eeaece

. : a SARS fete ered iu Gabo a ae ae oe

NE a ene pee te rp an an PEE rE le oT aN Fol face ona Gilatch eke

HQ

> As |

Si ise caked wtracii sally . _vnd sra" Na no aso Teas a cy cas a a cic eee eee

, . sf EER Pele eer ne ere Ne ee SND are Veter ate a et ae oid Gerth bates

32 .

; UI is Sas she a ec sca Sassi sh sds ase fc cad Nk ec snk sa Panta sa td ic eae er

I ee i ea ee i ae ones

: een eae Sea Seite Mie a ea dee eek he ee ee sate ns ad see aie le

36

xt SE a TS HE a GI ee ee Ree Mae EN Sa eM heey IN eect ek ot | nonheme i

32

Defendants’ total sales..... Sr rT Lee Seco y een ies aii eaecess

a ee a eae Ee Re ee ea ee eee HS

PAE ME 6 thidcnedon, 6004 ennes ens mw eendaseensebareesen Veeneeee pesewtews

I a mt bagndh ag a ee it EE as a -

B. Valentine .......- eee en ee iiiiinin eid uniananea eS ee Fem hain

I pike bedhead a danas aaae te Gil dries a eee insiacion th

os 8s eeexsgeGuee«e#« # « @ eee nceaeereee#e#eeeee#s#seeneeeere#ekierrteeeseeee e sneneaer,e* # « senreeeese «

A OS eae a a ta ak a cee ee aaa iat tiga haute Ras ae ee

a ie shieatey sitesi aed cats eaten ahiek bined etches ax

I spain back iiss tae ee soiesthtdaiieiialie Relate coat i de PRE Ge EE ae

Baxter & Co ..... a ac Pte 2 eS Re en ET sda pilin casi abies ns

Mordyke & Co...........-- I ee eT ee ge een pee ee eibatouta

_ oe 9 ae Pea, Pee i tie Sn a ae Se eS eT ae Ee Te

CRPTROS 60 PERO FD .wccccicccscesvs jctottatenns deinen i aaah il qi aNS ee

—s

©

|

2

ae

d

¢

po 2

one

we we

—~

aeege

wt

] >)

¢ )

~ $

&) &)

~~ ~-

9 »

la

o_

- —

&) *>

“mg

K5 50

O~ }

120

100 00

os)

?O00

190

300

130

{yt}

360

2,046 30

nw tw Ge 0S

y —

> =~) de

whe CIS

~ © © @

~

Pe *

ml |

‘Sf °

a

ee

oo

37, 207 00

~

_

a

ll AR tat, BA EGAEA OR cholo 2: Casio hein PV NE IA

PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH. 27

Statement filed with master’s report—Continued.

LX70

I) PT Bk BD cccadwusne) swe enwisd wv ddedeace kas bce eee eee eee 1—4 »(

SD | Be HONG fn ov hkékKdvdawk bs Kh deck cbs ie ee ee ee l 1)

iy. Sek MMOLE os kc caddis hebsiebiscoonnn anes Saneuee eae l 4

21 Fs Bs ND x ow accdwsondeedsisédcinnwsatads Gite |—3 1G

l.

ry id 9 <

} OE Ge GID oda wcacdciuwsvsceewaretacweeve dese nuneee se Leelee 93 13

lar l Hurburt WF TUES ccnctcdednwedss bec duane dclewersceele eee eee 1—2 7

C. A.Gump & Co........... 1—2 7

T) Se ee Oe Cac cc 4. vc cne cohetesdcneescdéwsieimminnen eee |—-2 G1 25

Ruble & High a . — ro @ -

Br BR 5 aE gre rae Bape ELE NIN ce Pe CLM ee RM 1—-2 “1 25

lonns & Ste PG aa: wiaveeiera Siew am we ahend, qlanpeiaiindk @ arias ise @ late aaa ee ee lI— Wi 2

UD Os OT a i a a ee 32 13

More & V-caswes 12 ’

( Dk ccccudsd adv ddawbs ctnaad Jdcebeawees dee eee 1.3 yf

2 Vin yr of mach

‘ rm} r S ; ] ‘ {oO} von? ITY T}

a Peer ee ree eee cre ng ee Ss Pa oe he eR elo Be yd

N ( > ; =

Pe Oh bb vedadecedddeaebks eee enedlad seen ekése bees lees 2:

3]

duaiiieet 7

DD rence bet 7} i ne id sel ne ( I : a ~

he estimated cost b I nts

No. 2 ai i a I a a al are .

NO ee eran aie: SN. ey eS ees 1] ~

NO , Liv } y ;

$2

23. 4- ii

13, 727 {

ry & t » ‘ ’ ‘ 14+ 4 - 6>2 ¥ ‘ , , sf? | . C7 >

3 And afterwards, to wit, on the 23rd day of December, A. D. 1875,

the exceptions of said defendants to the foregoing report were

duly filed herein in said clerk’s office, which are in the words and figures

following, to wit:

Def’ ts’ ex. to report.

United States circuit court, northern district of Clio.

JONATHAN L. BOOTH q

vs.

GEORGE PARKS, G. Bb. TURNER, WILLIAM A. !

|

Taylor, and James A. Vaughn.

The respondents hereby except to the report of the master filed in this

case in pursuance of the decree of this honorable court, for the follow-

ing reasons, viz: :

1. They except to the allowance by the master of the sum of six hun-

dred and twenty-seven (7°; dollars as damages to the complainant, for

the reason that the said complainant, in his bill of complaint filed in

said suit, has not prayed any damages to be awarded to him, but only that

the said defendants might be decreed to account for and pay over to him

the profits of which the defendants had deprived him by the in-

o4 fringement of said patent, and by the use, manufacture, and sale

of said improved grain separators, and that said defi n lant is not

entitled to any other or further remedy than he has prayed fcr in his said

bill of complaint.

28 PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH.

2. That the items allowed by the master as damages are not such as

are by law recoverable as damages, and especially to the item of counsel

fees, which are not recoverable.

3. That the amount of damages awarded by the master is excessive.

4. The respondents further except to the allowance to the complainant

of the sum of four hundred and twenty dollars, in addition to the several

amounts awarded as damages and as profits, the same being allowed as a

‘‘ compensation ” to the complainant * for the time he bas spent in the

prosecution of.this action.” Respondents claim that complainant is not

entitled to recover any money compensation for his time in a suit for

iniringement of letters patent.

5. That the amount allowed by the master to the complainant as com-

pensation for his time is excessive.

6. That there is no sufficient proof of the amount of time expended

by complainant in the prosecution of this suit, nor of the value of his

time.

7. Because the master has taken no account of the time of respond-

ents expended in the manufacture and sale of infringing machines, nor

of interest on the capital employed in the business, all of which should

have been enquired into and proper allowance made to the respondents

therefor.

8. Because the master has made no allowance to the respond-

50 ents for expenses of advertising and other necessary expenses of

introducing their machines into the market, to which allowance

they are especially entitled in this case in view of the admitted fact that

the complainant has neither manufactured nor sold his patented ma-

chines, nor made any effort to introduce them into the market, since the

date of the reissue of his patent.

9, Respondents further except to the master’s report, because the

amount of profits awarded to the complainant is excessive, & further,

10. Because the master awarded to complainant the whole amount

of profits alleged to have been received by the respondents from the

manufacture and sale of infringing machines, there being ho proof and

no presumption that the complainant would have received any. such

amount of profits in case the respondents had not manufactured and

sold such machines.

11. Because the machine manufactured and sold by respondents was

manufactured under a letters patent of the United States granted to

one of said respondents, and is materially different in construction from

that described in complainant’s patent, and is admitted by complainant

in his testimony in this suit to be much more economical in construc-

tion, less complicated, and more practically applicable to such use.

12. Because from the proofs in the case and complainant’s own state-

ment the profits made by himself on the machines manufactured by

him was only an average of seven -),4; dollars for each machine, and that

he is not entitled to recover more profits than he himself made in

OO the mannfacture and sale of his own machines.

13. Because the master has allowed to complainant profits on

the entire machine instead of confining the amount awarded to a por-

tion of the total amount of profits due to the features of novelty em-

braced in the patented machine.

14. Because the master should have confined the award of profits to

the advantage derived from the patented improvement, exclusive of the

profits of manufacture, and exclusive also of the profits of making the

old machine known and used prior to the complainants’ alleged inven-

Ce Re Rs

~ PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH. Ze

tion. The profits or damages as the case may be, must be limited to

the value of the improvements only.

15. Because as appears from compl: uinant’s own testimony the only in-

vention covered by his patent is the direction in which the screens are

shaken and not otherwise in the coustruction of the machine itself.

16. Because the only advantage derived by the respondents in the

construction of their machine from tbe invention patented to complain-

ant is a slight economy in construction, amounting to about one dollar

on each machine.

17. Because it appears from the evidence that respondents were free

to manufacture and sell machines exactly similar in construction to

those manufactured by them, provided the riddles had be’ operated

With an end shake instead of a side shake, and that therefore they are

only chargeable with the profit derived by them from such slight change

of construction.

og 18. Because it appears from the evidence that shore is no ad:

vantage in the operation or use of the machines from the employ-

ment of the side-shake over the end-shake, and that therefore the meas-

ure of profits is the saving of one > dolls iron each machine in their con-

struction.

Respondents therefore pray this honorable court to setaside the mas-

ter’s report as filed, and that the same be referred back at the costs of

the complainant, to the end that another report may be made by the

master covtormable to law and the prineiples of equity.

W. BAKEWELL,

Counsel for Respondents.

Cont'd.

And afterward, to wit. at the October term of said court, to wit, on

the 29th day of December, A. D. 1875, this cause is continued to the

next term of this court.

And afterward, to wit, on the 3d day of January, A. D. 1876, came

the complainant by his solicitors, and filed in the clerk’s office of said

court his exceptions to said report, which exceptious are in the words

and figures following, to wit:

Compl't’s exceptions.

United States circuit court, northern district of OLio.

JONATHAN L. BooTtH )

vs

GEORGE PARKS ET AL. (

The complainant in the above action hereby excepts to the re-

O98 port of the master filed herein as follows:

lst. He excepts to the master’s refusal to allow him as dan-

ages on the machines wrongfully sold by the defendants at the rate of

profit that the complainant made on such machives made and sold by

him, being ninety-five, one hundred and five, aud one hundred and fifty

dollars respectively.

2d. In that the damages allowed by the master are less than he was

by law bound to allow.

3d. In that the said master allowed to the defendants the stm of two

y PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH.

thousand one hundred and one dollars moneys collected by the complain-

ant from various parties using such infringing machines.

4th. In that the master refused to allow interest on the profits report-

ed by him.

WILLEY, TERRELL & SHERMAN,

: Attys for Complt.

Cont'd.

And afterward, to wit, at the January term of said court, A. D. 1876,

this cause is continued to the next term of this court.

Hearing on exceptions commenced,

And afterward, to wit, at the April term of said court, to wit, on the

23d day of May, A. D. 1876, this cause came on to be heard upon the

exceptions filed herein by complainants and defendants tothe report of

the master filed in this cause. .Whereupon the arguments of counsel

vere commenced, but were not concluded. And thereupon the further

hearing of this cause is adjourned until to-morrow morning.

59 Taken under advis’t, &e.

And afterward, to wit, at said April term of said court, to wit, on the

24th day of May, A. D. 1876, came again the parties by their solicitors,

and thereupon the arguments of counsel being concluded this cause is

taken under advisement by the court upon said exceptions.

Cont'd,

And afterward, to wit, at the April term of said court, A. D. 1876, this

eciuse is continued to the next term of this court.

Ex. overruled save as to 4th ex. of dey'ts.

And afterward, to wit, at the October term of said court, to wit, on

the 9th day of December, A. D. 1876, this cause having been hereto.

fore heard and taken under advisement by the court upon the several

exceptions of the said complainant and the said defendants to the

master’s report hereinbefore filed, and the court being duly advised in

the premises, upon consideration thereof it is ordered that said several

exceptions be, and the same are hereby in all respects overruled, ex-

cept that the said defendants’ fourth exception, which relates to the

allowance by said master’s report of four hundred and twenty dollars

to said complainant as compensation for time occupied in the prosecu-

tion of this suit, is hereby sustained.

Final decree.

And afterward, to wit, at the said October term of said court, to wit,

on the 15th day of December, A. D. 1876, this cause came on for fur-

ther hearing, and it appearing that the court at its present term

Re has overruled all the exceptions to the master’s report filed either

by complainant or defendants, except the fourth exception of de-

fendants, it is ordered and decreed that the said master’s report be in all

respects confirmed except as to the item or amount referred to in said

ee “PARKS ET yun “VS. BOOTH.

fourth exception, and it is therefore found that the complainant is enti-

tled to receive of the respondents the sum of $10,571.29, for and on ac-

count of the profits made by them as found by said master, and on ac-

count of expenses incurred, with interest thereon from the date of the

filing of said .report, to wit, November 24th, 1875, to the first day of

this term, making i all the sum of $11,184.42.

Whereupon it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the complainant

recover of said defendants the sum of $11,184.42, and that the said de-

fendants pay the same, with interest thereon from the first day of this

term, to the said complainant, with the costs herein, within thirty days,

or that execution issue to collect the same as on judgments at law.

A ppeal.

And thereupon came said defendants, by their solicitors, and gave

notice of their intention to appeal this cause to the Supreme Court of

the United States, which appeal is hereby allowed, and bond therefor is

fixed in the sum of $15,000.

61 In U.S. ecireuit court.

JONATHAN L. BOOTH. }

vErSUS ,

TURNER, PARKS & Co. \

[t is hereby agreed that, with the eonsent of said court, a rule may

be granted on the complainant to show cause why the final deeree in

this case should not be amended in accordance with the annexed peti-

tion of the defendants. Rule returnable on July loth, 1877.

Cleveland, June 50th, 1877.

| WILLEY, TERRELL & SHERMAN,

Sol’rs for Compt.

And now, to wit, June 30th, 1877, in accordance with the stipulation

of parties, a rule is hereby granted on the complainant to show cause

why the decree in this case should not be amended in accordance with

the petition of the defendant this day filed. Rule returnable on July

loth, 1877.

G2 JONATHAN L. BootuH }

vs,

TURNER, PARKS & Co. )

To the honorable the judges of the circuit court of the United States

for the northern district of Ohio:

The above-named defendants respectfully represent to your honors

that since the statement made by them to the master appointed under

the decree of this court ** to ascertain & take W& state and report to this

court an account of the gains, profits, and advantages which the defend-

ants have received, or which have arisen or accrued to them since the

29th of November, 1864, from infringing the said exclusive rights of said

complainant by the manufacture, use, and sale of the said improve.

ments patented in said reissued letters patent, and also what damages

in addition thereto the complainant has sustained by reason of said in-

fringement ;” and since the coming. in and confirmation by this court of

PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH.

the master’s report (excepting as to the fourth exception of defendants

thereto), the said defendants have discovered that, in making out their

statement to the master of the number & description of machines man-

ufactured and sold by them, and of the parties to whom the same were

sold, and the price received therefor, one machine sold by them was ac-

cidentally and unintentionally omitted by them; that the said machine

was a No. 4 separator, and was sold by the personal efforts of said de-

fendants to R. H. Heywood, of Venice, in the State of Ohio, on the 16th

day of July, A. D. 1867, for the sum of one hundred & ninety dollars

($190); that the amount of profits reported by said master as due

63 to said complainant on machines sold by them, by the personal

efforts of the defendants themselves, is twenty-five per centum of

the price thereof, the average price of said No. 4 machines being stated

in said master’s report to be one hundred & ninety-two dollars, and that

the profits accruing to said complainant on said machines would be the

sum of forty-eight dollars ($48).

The said defendants, therefore, pray your honors to make an order

nune pro tune as of the 15th December, 1576, the date of the final de-

cree in this case, directing that the said sum of forty-eight dollars, to-

gether with interest thereon from the 24th November, 1875, until the

first day of the term at which said decree was made, to wit, the third

day of October, 1876, be added to the amount of said decree, without

prejudice to the appeal taken by said defendants from the final decree of

this court to the Supreme Court of the United States.

GEO. PARKS

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO,

City of Cleveland :

Before me, an United States commissioner, personally came George

Parks, one of the above-named defendants, who, being duly sworn, de-

poses and says that the facts set forth in the foregoing statement & pe

tition are true, to the best of his knowledge, information, & belief.

CHAS. He BILL,

U. 8. Con’r N. D. O.

64 (Indorsed:) 2249. Jonathan L. Booth vs. Turner, Parks & Co.

| Petition of defendants to amend decree.

And now, the within petition being presented, on consideration there-

of, the final decree in this case is amended, nune pro tune, as of Decem-

ber 15, 1876, by adding the sum of $51.53 to the amount for which said

decree is entered, without prejudice to the appeal to the Supreme Court

taken by the defendants therefrom.

Copy filed June 30th, ’77.

CHAS. H. BILL,

Dep. CUk.

65 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Northern District of Ohio, ss: 7

At astated term of the April court of the United States within and

for the northern district of Ohio, begun and held at the city of Cleve-

land in said district on the first Tuesday in April, being the 3rd day of

said month, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 77,

and of the Independence of the United States of America the 10Ist,

present, the honorable Martin Welker, district judge, among the pro-

ceedings then and there had were the following, to wit:

cited eaaaided

“PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH. 3

JONATHAN L. BOOTH )

@ 2249. Chancery.

GEORGE PARKS ET AL. '

TUESDAY, Sept. 18th.

And now the within petition being presented, on consideration there-

of the final decree in this case is amended nune pro tune as of Decem-

ber 15th, 1876, by adding the sum of 851.53 to the amount for which said

decree is entered, without prejudice to the appeal to the Supreme Court

taken by the defendants therefrom.

66 Cireuit court of the United States, northern distriet of Ohio.

i L. Bootu )

-In chancery.

GEORGE P ARKS ET AL. '

It is hereby stipulated that the testimony in this case shall be exelu-

sively in writing and filed, and that the complainant shall take and file

his testimony by the lst of December, 1871-; the defendants their testi-

mony by the Ist February, 1872, and all rebutting or further testimony

by either party to be taken and filed by the Sth ‘of March, 1872. Tes-

timony to be taken by either party on six days’ notice to the other party,

except that depositions may be taken on the 16th day of November,

1871, at Rochester, N. Y., on four days’ notice, and before any officer

authorized to take depositions, waiving all outside proof of his official

character. |

WILLEY, CARY & TERRILL,

Solicitors for Complainant.

WILLIAM BAKEWELL,

Solicitor for Defendants.

OF, py >

O7 Circuit court of the United States, northern district of Ohio

J. L. BOOTH, COMPLAINANT, |

vs. -In chaneery.

PARKS ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

De P Ositions will be taken by the complainant in this cause at No. 8]

Powers Block, in the city of Rochester, State of New York, before

Willian H. Shipherd, or other competent authority, on the 16th Novem-

ber instant, at 10 a. m., to continue from day to day until completed.

WILLEY, CARY & TERRILL,

Sol'rs for Compt.

To W. BAKEWELL, ksq.,

Solr for Def’ts.

PITTSBURGH, Nov. 11th, 1871.

veceived copy of this notice.

BAKEWELL,

Solr for Der'ts.

REC. 253—3

Fees ah era a

34 PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH.

68 In the circuit court of the United States for the northern distriet

of Ohio.

JONATHAN L. BOOTH, COMPLAINANT, /

, v8. > In chancery.

GEORGE PARKS ET AL., DEFENDANTS. 9

Depositions of witnesses on behalf of the complainant in this action taken

before William H. Sheppard (a notary publie duly appointed for the

county of Monroe in the State of New York), pursuant to the annexed

stipulation and notice, at No.81 Powers Block, in the city of Roches-

ter and State last aforesaid, on the 16th day of November, 1871.

Mr. W. F. Cogswell appearing for the complainant, and Mr. G. H.

Christy for the defendants.

JONATHAN L. Boots, being carefully examined and cautioned, and

duly sworn to testify the whole truth and nothing but the truth, saith:

lf am forty eight years of age. Iam the complainant in this aetion.

l reside at Rochest r, New York.

The counsel for the complainant shows the witness certified copy of

reissued letters patent dated the 29th day of November, 1864, to Jona-

than L. Booth, which copy is by nme warked Plaintiff’s Exhibit A, and

asks— |

int. 1, @. Are you the patentee named in those letters patent?

A. I am.

69 The certified copy letters patent so marked were now offered in

evidence.

Int. 2. Q. Are von familiarly acquainted with the specifications and

drawings attached to the letters patent which have been shown you?

A. Lam.

The complainant’s counsel now shows the complainant, witness, a

model marked by me Plaintiff’s Exhibit Bb, and asks: , 7

Int. 3. Q. State whether the model now shown you Is a correct repre-

sentation of the machine or device described in the specifications and

illustrated in the drawings attached to the certified copy of the letters

patent marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit A.

A. It is,

The model so shown the witness & so marked was now by the coun-

sel for complainant offered in evidence.

Int. 4. Q. Where did you reside at the time of making the invention

described in tbe letters patent already introduced in evidence ?

A. In New York City.

Int. 5. Q. State whether machines constructed according to the speci-

fications attached to such letters patent went into use, and when first,

and where, and how extensively ? |

A. They did go into use; first in a flour-mill, practically, June Ist, in

the year eighteen huudred and fifty-nine, at Rochester, New York, in

the mill called the Crescent Mills. Some half dezen machines made

precisely like this went into use right away.

Int. 6. Q. Do you know the defendants in this action ?

A. I do.

70 Int. 7. Q. Where do they reside or do business ?

A. At Cuyahoga Falls, in the State of Ohio.

Int. 8. Q. What is the business carried on by them at that place ?

A. They manufacture grain-cleaning machinery.

og a= eA ni lion 8 LS 0) 5 or el 4 eee Sa SS

" PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH. SB

Int. 9. Q. Have you been at their works ?

A. I have.

Int. 10. Q. Do you know whether they do, and have for some years

past, manufactured and sold a grain separator ?

A. 1 do. |

Int. 11. Q. State whether they manufacture and sell such apparatus?

A. They do, or have; I can’t say whether they are doing it to-day or

ot.

The plaintiff is now shown by me a model marked by me Plaintiff’s

Exhibit C, and is asked:

Int. 12. Q. State whether the model now shown you is a correct rep-

resentation of the machine manufactured and sold by the defendants.

(Objected to as leading.)

A. It is.

The model so shown the witness, and so marked, is now offered in

evidence by the counsel for the complainant.

Int. 15. Q. Where have you seen machines manufactured by the de-

fendants of which the model, Plaintiit’s Exhibit C, just shown you is a

representation ?

(Objected to; the witness not having yet testified that he ever saw

such machines.)

il A. I have seen them in many places; at their works in Cuyaho-

va Falls, in Ohio; in flour mills in Chicago, in Hlinois; and in

Milwaukee, in Wisconsin, and on sale in the houses of their agents at

Chicago, at the house of T. W. Baxter, and at St. Louis, at the house

of A. K. Halteman.

Int. 14. Q. Were the gentlemen you have named the defendants’

agents at those respective places ?

A. They were.

Int. 15. Q. What has been your occupation in life?

A. Imight be called a mechanical inventor, 1 suppose.

Int. 16. Q. Have you also been a practical mechanic ?

A. Iudirectly so; not professionaily.

Int. 17. Q. State whether you have studied mechanical principles

and their application in different kinds of mechanism ; and if so, for what

length of time?

A. I have for the past t®Wenty-five years.

Int. 18. Q. If you have devoted your attention to any special depart-

ment of mechanies, state what.

A. I have devoted more time to the construction and mechanism of

grain separators than any other during the past twenty-five years.

Int. 19. Q. What is the principal object or purpose sought to be ac-

complished in the machine described in your letters patent, Exhibit A?

A. To separate oats from wheat without waste.

Int. 20. Q. State whether the presence of oats in wheat brought to

market is more common in some sections of our country than others ;

and if so, in what?

A. In wheat grown inthe Western States generally there is

(2 found more oats than from wheat grown in this part of the

country.

The counsel for the complainant now shows the witness plaintiff’s

Exhibit C, and asks?

Int. 21. QM. Have you examined that model in connection with the

specification attached to your letters patent, Exhibit A ?

A. I have.

Int. 22. Q. State whether, in your opinion, @ machine constructed

| atl SALA LE a 29> 24

36 PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH.

after that model would embody substantially the same mechanical prin-

ciples as described in the specifications and drawings attached to your

letters patent ?

A. It does involve the same. |

Int. 25. Q. State what parts described in the specifications of your

letters patent are in your opinion to be found in the model, Exhibit C.

A. The arrangement of the zig-zag seives and boxes with the lateral

shake motion, and also the series of zig-zag seives with the lateral shake

motion in combination with the fan and vertical spout, are the same.

Int. 24. Q. State whether the location of the fan-box, fan, and vertical

spout with reference to the series of zig-zag screens is the same in the

model, plaintiff’s Exhibit C, asin the specifications annexed to your

letters patent, Exhibit A, or different; and if different, state in what

that difference consists.

A. The effective relation I consider the same. The position of the

fan and spout in relation to the zig-zag seives and boxes is different;

the vertical spout coming up at the end of the machine, while in

73 Exhibit A it comes up at the side.

Int. 25. Q. Does that change in position produce any different

result, in your opinion ?

A. It does not.

Int. 26. Q. State whether it produces the result in any different

manner.

A. It produces some different results. It deposits the light substances

blown out of the vertical spout in a different place or point relatively to

the zig-zag seives than it does in the other case. The machine in Ex-

hibit A deposits the impurities blown out of the vertical spout at the

side of the machine, while in the other they are deposited at the end.

Int. 27. Q. State whether, in your opinion, thereisany difference either

in the result produced or in the mode of producing it in the two ma-

chines other than you have described.

A. There is.

Int. 28. Q. State what. ,

A. The oats, in Exhibit C, are discharged at one end of the machine,

while in Exhibit A they are discharged at both ends. I see no other

difference in the results.

Int. 29. Q. State whether these differenceS are substantial or formal,

in your opinion. |

A. I consider the differences only formal.

Being cross-examined by defendants’ counsel :

Cross-int. 1. @. Who made the models, Exhibits B & C?

A. The models were made by A. K. Halteman, of St. Louis.

Cross-int. 2. Q. When and for what purpose, if you know ?

id A. They were made last spring some time, at my request, in

anticipation of this trial.

Cross-int. 3. Q. Is he a model-maker by occupation ?

A. I cannot say that he is professionally a model-maker. He is a

manutacturer of mill machinery.

Cross-int. 4. @. When did you move to New York City?

A. About 1856, as near as | can remember.

Cross-int. 5. @. How long had you been there before you made the

invention described in Exhibit A ?

A. About a year before I commenced my experiments.

Cross-int. 6. Q. How long did your experimenting continue before the

invention was complete ?

PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH. 37

A. From six months to a year, as near as I can remember.

Cross-int. 7. Q. Have you no means of ascertaining these dates more

exactly ? |

A. I may have, and will find them if I can.

Cross-int. 8. @. After moving to New York in 1856, as you think, when

did you next visit Ohio ? |

A. I visited Ohio in the spring of 1859. I think that was the first

Visit after moving to New York. I may have visited my father before

that at Cuyahoga Falls. I think I did. lLIonly thing so from my habit

of seeing my father once a year. |

Cross-int. 9. Q. In your answer to interrogatory 5, you say your first

inachine went into use in the Crescent Mills; that some half a dozen

machines made like Exhibit B went into use right away. Please state

where each such machine was put into use, and when.

( A. One more machine was put into the Crescent Mills, Roches-

ter, New York, making two; both put in at the same time, June

Ist, 1809. Four more machines; I think, two or four, were put into use

at the Frontier Mills, Black Rock, New York, which were started Sep-

tember 15,1859. One, if not two machines, were put into use at Heck-

er’s Mills, called Metropolitan Mills, in New York City about that time ;

I cannot name the street the mills are on.

Cross-int. 10. Q. Are these all the machines you have made like Ex-

hibit b?

A. They are.

Cross-int. 11. Q. Have you made since 1859, or during that year, other

grain cleaning machines than those above enumerated; and, if so, how

did ‘they vary in construetion from Exhibit B? 3

A. Lhave made some fifty or a hundred other machines since 1859,

and about the year 1860 & 1861, which were different from Exhibit B.

Cross-int. 12. Q. How did they differ?

A. They differed by being made very near like Exhibit C. The only

difference between them and Exhibit C was that the oats were received

from the series of seives into a shaking trough or chute, which deposited

the oats at the reverse end or near the reverse end to the place of de-

posit of cats in Exhibit C. The cockle seeds and such foreign matter

as passes throuch a coekle-seive were also dep sited a! nearly the same

point, The shake motion of the seives Was obtained by a belt from the

draw-shaft on the maehine, running over an intermediate pulley,

16 which ran the pulley by the friction obtained from the bearing

thereon of the under side of the belt running from the drive-shaft

to the fun.

Cross-int. 13. Q. When did you introduce these changes ?

A. One design of the machine deseribed was effected by draft at the

Same time that the other was.

Cross int. 14. Q. When did you first make a machine such as you de.

seribed in your answer to cross-interrogatory 12 as being very near like

Exhibit ©?

A. That was made in August, September, or October, 1859.

Adjourned to 9$ a. m., Friday, Nov. 17th, at the same place.

WM. H. SHEPARD,

Notary Public. :

FRIDAY, Nov. 17th—95 a. m.

Parties aud counsel inet pursuant to adjournment, and cross-examina-

tion of Mr. Booth was continued, as follows:

Cross-int. 16. Q. Can you give any of the dates refer’ed to in your

38 PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH.

cross examination of yesterday more accurately than you have already

done?

A. I find that notwithstanding I left Cuyohaga Falls in 1856 I did not

reach New York until the spring of 1857. I commenced my experiments

on the machine in the fall of 1858, and worked at it all winter, and on

till I went to Ohio in the spring of 1859,

Cross-int.17. Q. Where and by whom were your first machines made ?

A. The first full-sized practical machine was made at Cuyohaga

(i Falls, Ohio, by L. Hatfield, at his shop there. The other ma-

chines heretofore mentioned as first made by me were made at

Rochester, New York, at the shop of Joseph Hall.

Cross-int. 18. Q. When did you, either alone or in partnership with

others, commence the manufacture of grain-separators at shops owned

or controlled by yourselves ?

A. Inever did make any machines at shops owned or controlled by

myself. I always hired my machines made.

Cross-int. 19. Q. How long did you continue to get machines made at

Joseph Hall’s shops ?

A. Into the fall and fore part of the winter of 1859, as near as I can

remem ber.

Cross-int. 20. Q. Where did you get them made next ?

A. They were made next on Brown’s Race, Rochester, New York, at

the shops of Benton & Gatens.

Cross int. 21. Q. How tong did you patronize them, and whom next?

A. I think they manufactured machines more or less for about a year;

perhaps a little more; perhaps two years; I can’t remember exactly ;

they made fifty or a hundred machines spoken of by mein my former

answers. No other parties have manufactured for me since, that I now

think of. |

Cross-int. 22. Q. Where was the first machine used avhich you say

was i ide by you very near like Exhibit C, and when was it put into

use ?

A. The first machine was made in the shops of Joseph Hall some-

where between the first of June, 1859, and the fall of that year. I ean’t

tellexactly. It wastested there. Wheat wasrun through it. It

18 was taken from there to Chicago and exhibited in the basement

of the Board of Trade buildings, somewhere about the Ist of Jan-

uary, 1860, and I think it was sold to Nichols & Britts, of Milwaukee,

for their flour mill.

Cross-int. 23. @. When and where did you first see one of defend: ants’

machines such as is represented in Exhibit C?

A. It must have been about the 26th of September, 1859, at the works

of Turner, Parks & Co., Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.

Cross int. 24. Q. How do you fix that date?

A. [fix the date from my memorandum giving the time that my ma-

chines at the Frontier Mills at Black Rock were started, being present

when they were started and going from there directly to Cuyahoga Falls,

Ohio, and on my arrival I heard that Turner, Parks & Company were

exhibiting a machine partly done, which was said to be like mine. I

went direetly to their works and asked if I could see the machine. My

memorandum shows that the machines were started at the Frontier

Mills on the 15th of September, 1859.

Cross-int. 25. Q@. Examine the circular now shown to you, containing

among other things a cut of your grain separator, constructed substan-

tially as shown in Exhibit B. Is this a copy of a circular issued by you

at or about the time it bears date, December, 1859?

n ie lS ene £ 3 vsti

PARKS ET AL VS. BOOTH. 39

A. It is.

79 Cross int. 26. Q. State why, after making half a dozen ma-

chines, more or less, as you have testified, like Exhibit B, with

the fan and fan-box running lengthwise of the machine and the spout

up the side, why you then adopted and afterwards used the construction

Shown in Exhibit C, viz, with the fan and fan-box crosswise of the ma-

chine and the spout up the end. Why did you make these changes ?

A. The first application I had for a practical-sized machine like Ex-

hibit B was from G. W. Burbank, proprietor of the Crescent Mills,

vochester, New York, a mill of some nine run of stone of very large

capacity. He required separators of very large capacity, and the only

practical mode of enlarging the capacity of the machine, being confined

and restricted. to certain heights between the floor and the ceiling of

the mill or point from which we had to take the grain into the hopper

of this machine, it was necessary to coustruct the machine with the

Series of zig-zag Seives arranged relatively to the fan and spout as

shown in Exhibit Bb. For if we were obliged to use the same length of

seives and obtain the same capacity arranged the other way as in Ex-

hibit C, we would have to make the machine too high for its practical

application to the confined limits of said flour mill or other large mills.

This is further explained in this way. The cockle-setve which conducts

the grain from the last seive of the series would have tv be the fall

length of the setves and elevated to a proper pitch to allow

SO the grain to run from it to the spout for final separation. In

smaller mills, where the requirements of the machines were ma-

terially lessened, the arrangement as in Exhibit C is much more econ-

omical in its construction ; less complicated and more practically apph-

cable to such use, there being usually sufficient heighth found in sueh

mills for its introduction.

Cross-int. 27. Q. State the length, width, and heighth of that machine

and the number of setves; [ mean the one you first put up in the Cres-

cent Mills.

A. The seives were six feet in length, lengthwise of the machine, and

six in number, beside the cockle-seive. I cannot state the exact heighth

of the machine, but between five and six feet,as near as [ can judge,

from the bottom of the machine to the board or floor on the top, exclu-

sive of the hopper. The seives were in the neighborhood of eighteen or

nineteen inches in width as near as I can remember. The width of the

perforations was still less, part of the seives being blank or smooth

surtace. .

Cross-int. 28. Q. Give the dimensions of the largest machine you ever

built with the fan-box and fan running erosswise of the machine, and

state what mill it was used in ? |

A. The seives were four feet in length; they were built in lots. I

cannot give the name of any mill where any of those largest ma-

8] chines were used. They were sold principally by my agent in

Chicago. The seives were six in number besides the cockle-seive,

built in the same manner, size, form, and pitch as shown in the series

of seives in my description of Exhibit b, first put up in the Crescent

Mills. The heighth was about or near five feet, as near as I can remem-

ber, and the width of the seives were about eighteen or nineteen

inches. |

J. L. BOOTH.

Being re-examined by the counsel for the complainant:

Iut. 30. Q. Have the defendants manufactured and sold machines

40 PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH.

like the model Exhibit C since the year 1864; and if so, down to what

time ?

A. They have manufactured and sold such machines from that time

down to the pr esent, or down to this spring.

Being cross-examined by counsel for the defendants:

Cross-int. 29. Q. What is the latest date of the manufacture or sale

by you of a grain separator like Exhibit C?

(Objected to by complainant’s counsel as immaterial.)

A. In 1861 or 1862, as near as I can remember now about it.

J. L. BOOTH.

Sz The testimony of Rufus I’. Osgood, taken on the 16th November,

1871, at the same place, during the suspension of the taking of

the testimony of the witness booth.

WM. H. SHEPARD,

Notary Public.

RvuFwS F. OsGoon, being carefully examined and cautioned and duly

sworn to testify the whole truth and nothing but the truth, saith:

Int. 1. Q. Where do you reside and what is your age and occupation ?

A. Lama patent agent, or attorney. I reside in Rochester, and am

thirty-nine years of age. |

Int. 2. Q. Have vou made the subject of mechanies and mechanical

principles a study, and if so, for how long?

A. I have for the past fifteen years.

Int. 3. Q. State whether your occupation has led you to the investi-

gation of mechanical principles as applied in different kinds of mech-

anism, and if so, for what length of time?

A. It has, for the past fifteen years.

The counsel for the complainant shows the witness the Plaintiff’s Ex-

hibit A and asks:

Int. 4. QM. Have you examined and are you acquainted with the spec-

ifications and the drawings attached to the letters patent which are now

shown you?

A. I have, and am acquainted with them.

Int. 5. Q. State whether a person having ordinary acquaintance

with the mechanic arts could construct a machine from the specifica-

tions and drawings attached to plaintift’s Exhibit A.

(Objected to, the insufficiency of the specifications and drawings not

having been set up as one of the defenses in the defendants’ answer.)

A. I think he could.

The counsel for the complainant uow shows the wit laintiif’s Ex-

hibit B and asks:

Int. 6. Q. Have y you seen this model before, and if so, have you com.-

pared it with the specifications aud drawings in Exhibit A?

A. | baie:

Int. 7. Q. State whether the m»> del Exaibit Bis a correct representa.

tion of the device described in the i ‘ifications and drawings attached

to Exhibit A.

(Objected to as leading.)

A. I should say it Is.

The counsel for the complainant now shows the witness plaintiff’s

Exhibit C and asks:

Int.8 Q. Have vou seen this model before and have you examined

the same ?

aed

a ae tas ANE thal ee FYE ot Fe tt td the

PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH. 4]

A. I have,

Int. 9. Q. State whether. in your opinion, a machine constructed

84 according to plaintift’s Exhibit C would embody substantially

the same mechanical principles and be substantially the same

device as that described in the specifications and drawings of plaintitt’s

Exhibit A ?

(Objected to as containing matter which more properly belongs to the

answer of the witness than to an interrogatory.)

A. In my opinion the same principle is involved.

Int. 10. Q. State your reasons for that opinion, and particularly state

what parts described in the specifications aid dravings of Exhibit A

you find in the model Exhibit C, and the method of their operation.

A. The reason is that the same arrangeiment of zig-zag sereens and

boxes is used in Exhibit C as is described in the specifications and

drawings ot Exhibit A, and said series of zig-zag sereens and boxes

receives tlie latera!l shake at rizit angles to the passage of the grain

which is described in the specifications and drawings of Exhibit A, and

furthermore, in EKxhibit C this series of screens and boxes having the

lateral shake is combined with a fan case and trunk in the same man-

ner as deseribed in Exhibit A.

?

'

‘

i

Int. ll. @. State whether, in your opinion, the zig zag Screens and

boxes In Exhibit C are the sameas those deseribed in the specifi-

SO cations and drawings of Jexhibit uA.

(Objected to as leading and as especially improper in form as

a question to be put to an expert.

A. I think they are the same.

Int. 12. Q. State whether you find in Exhibit Ca fan and fan box

communicating with a spout or passage, and if sv, deseribe It.

A. ldo. The fan-box 1s located at the bottom of the machine; the

spout extends up vertically and a communication seems to be estab-

lished between the lower sereen or Doard and the. vertical spout.

Int. 15. ©. State whether there is a fan, fau-box, and spout deseribed

in the specifications of Exhibit A, and whether they are shown in the

model Exhibit b.

A. Those parts are described and shown in Exhibit A and are shown

in Exhibit B. |

Int. 14. Q. State whether there is a difference in the lozation or oper-

ation of the fan, fan-box and spout in the two devices shown in Exhibit

A and C, and if so, state What it is

A. The location seems to be different, that In Exhibit A being upon

the side opposite the faces of tie screens, While in Exhibit C it seems to

be at the end of the screens. Lhe operation. I think, would be

SO the same. The trunk would serve simply to receive the grain

after it has passed the screens, and the fan to remove the impna-

rities and allow the clean grain to pass outat the bottom of the fan case.

Int. 15. @ State what is tie operation of the zigzag sereens and

boxes in connection with the tan and spout as deseribed in Exhibit A.

A. As I understand it, the screens and boxes remove oats and allow

the grain aud smaller impurities to pass, while the fan-case fan aud

trunk receive the grain and remove the smaller and lighter impurities.

Int. 16. Q. How does that operation compare with the operation of

similar parts In Exhibit C?

A. L should say it was the same.

Being cross-examined by counsel for defendants :

Cross-int. 1. y. Are you a practical mechanic ?

ee

:

>

pies

it

4

4

#

:

4? PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH.

A. Iam not.

Cross-int. 2. Q. Did you ever have any practical experience in build-

ing or operating grain separators ?

A. I have not.

Cross-int. 3. Q. How long has it been since you first commenced giv-

ing testimony as an expert in suits for infringements of letters patent ?

A. I have not made that a regular business, but have acted in

S7 that capacity for two years, more or less, I think, at intervals.

Cross-int. 4. Q. Did you ever make mechanics and mechanical

principles a apee lal study, except in connection with your profession as

patent agent ?

A. Not very specially ; although [I always had great interest in th: it

subject.

Cross-int. 5. Q. Examine the claims of complainant’s patent, Exhibit

A, and state specifically what, in your opinion, are the essential elements

of the complainant’s invention as therein set torth.

A. In the first claim I should say that the novelty was the zigzag

screens and the boxes when they have a shake motion at right angles to

the passage of the grain, covering those screens and boxes only when

such shake motion is given, in contradistinction to any other motion.

In the secohd claim I should say the novelty was in those zigzag screens

and boxes having such lateral shake motion at right angles to the pas-

sage of the grain when «ombined with the fan and spout, in contradis-

tinction to any other thau the lateral shake motion.

Cross-int. 6. Q. Is any particular humber of screeus and boxes, in your

opinion, av essential element

A. I should say it would require more than one.

SS Cross-int. 7. @. Twosuch screens and boxes, | mean such as are

deseribed in Exhibit A, would then come within the purview or

scope of complainant’s invention as claimed in Exhibit A?

A. I should doubt whether it would.

Cross-int. 8. Q. Why uot ?

A. In the specifications mention is made.of the use of % series of zig-

zag screeus instead of a single set. My doubt in regard to it would be

as to what is the distinction between the term ‘ set ” and the term

‘ series,” Whether the term “set” weans a single screen and box or

pair of each.

Cross-int. 9. @. Would you or not consider that two constituted a

series ?

A. I should hardly regard it so in the seuse the word is used in this

specification. :

Cross-int. 10 @. How is it in the ordinary use of the term?

A. I cannot say positively, bat I think that a series would require

more than two.

OCross-int. 11. @. Would two and four, with two as a multipher, con-

stitute a geometrical series ?

A. I cannot say.

Cross-int. 12. 4). Would there be any difference except in degree be-

tween the operation of two screens and boxes and the operation of three

screens and boxes, supposing the construction to bein both cases

89 in all other respects as described in Exhibit A ?

\.° I think there would.

Cross int. 18 Q@. State what the difference would be.

A. In order to clean oats from grain it would be necessary to carry

the mass over a given degree of surface in order to make the separation,

PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH. 43

and it would be better to pass it over short lengths than long ones, and

the greater number of lengths used the better it is until the separation

complete. Two lengths would not be sufficient for the work, nor even

three, in my opinion.

Cross-int. 14. Q. As I understand you, then, the difference of opera-

tion between such a machine having two such screens and boxes and one

having three such screens and boxes would be that in the latter the grain

would be more perfectly cleaned than in the former ? :

A. I think that would be the effect.

Cross int. 15. Q. Would there be any other material effect that you

know of ?

A. I cannot say as there would. In the one case 1 should regard the

operation as incomplete, and therefore not effective for the purpose de-

signed, that is, the separation of oats from grain; and in the other

case I should regard it as complete with a suitable number in the series,

but I think it would require more than three screens and boxes in

90 the series to make the operation complete.

Cross-int. 16. Q. Would a machine having three screens anu

boxes, and otherwise constructed as in Exhibit A, be in your opinion

within the purview and scope of the claims of Exhibit A?

A. I think it would.

Cross.int. 17. Q. I understand you to say in your examination-in-chief

that the arrangement of the fan-case and fan crossways of the machine

instead of lengthwise, and the arrangement of the spout up the en! of

the machine instead of up the side, does not constitute a substantial or

material variation from complainant’s patent; am I right?

A. That is what I meant. It may have additional funetions that I

do not know of, but in my view it has the effect mentioned in the com-

plainants’ patent of receiving the grain from the screens or board under

the screens and blowing out the impurities. That, I understand, is the

feature of novelty so far as the trunk and fan are concerned, iu the com-

plainant’s patent.

Cross-int. 18. Q. Suppose the shaking devices in Exhibit B instead of

being connected with the end of the sereens were connected with the

side or edge so as to shake them in the direction of the travel of the

grain, would such a machine be within the scope of complainant’s in-

vention ?

A. 1 donot think it would. [think that patent is confined to a shake

whieh is at rigiit angles to the passage of the grain.

Cross-int. 19. Q. Lunderstand you then that the direction of the shake

isa material element in Complainant’s patent ?

91 A. Yes, sir.

Cross int. 20. Q. LI notice that the drawings of Exhibit A have

the signature of J. Fraser and Company, attorneys. Were you, when

the papers for that reissue were prepared, in any way connected with

that firm ? . '

A. I was one of the partners of that firm at that time.

RUFUS T. OSGOOD.

The taking of testimony adjourned until further notice.

Ido hereby certify that the preceding depositions were reduced to

writing by me and signed by the said Jonathan L. Booth and Rufus F.

Osgood, respectively, and that I am not of counsel or attorney for either

of the parties to the said suit, nor am I interested in the event thereof.

[ SEAL.. WM. H. SHEPARD,

Notary Publie.

44 PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH.

92 Depositions of witnesses taken to be used in an action pending

in the U.S. C. court for the northern district of Olio, wherein

Jonathan L. Booth is plaintiff and George Parks et al. are defendants,

in pursuance of the notice hereunto attached, and at the time and

place therein stated.

The said plaintiff appeared in person and by John E. Casey, his at-

mer y, and the said defendant appeared in person and by his attorney,

H. Christy, and thereupon the said George Parks et al. produced

a following witnesses and other evidence in order, to wit:

The counsel for the defendant offers in evidence certified copies from

the U. S. Patent Office of letters patent of the U. States, as follows:

Letters patent No. 9500, granted to Samuel Canby, dated Dee. 25th,

1852, for improvement in haar saps y machines, the same being hereunto

annexed and marked Defendants’ Exhibit No. hy Die'y Vea

Letters patent No. 2649, graute a to Damel Flickinger and Sebastian

Krin, dated May 28th, 1842, for machines for cleaning grain, marked

Defendants’ Exhibit No. 2, R. J. W.

Letters patent No. 21036, granted to b. P. Trimmer, dated July 27th,

1858, for machines for cleaning grain, marked Defendants’ Exhibit No.

o; te es WW,

Adjourned till

Taking of testimony resumed.

Met pursuant to adjournment, parties and counsel present as before.

JOHN BEAN, of lawful age, being first duly sworn, in response tothe

interrogatories propoundoad, deposeth and saith as follows, to wit:

93 Int. Ist, by defendants’ att’y. State your name, age, residence,

and occupation.

Ans. John Bean is my name: age is 513; Lam now manufacturing

pumps. 2. My residence is in Hudson, Michigan. |

Int. 2. Were you ever in the business of manufacturing and selling

erain separating or winnowing machines, and if so, where‘’and how long ?

Ans. I have been in that business. I have manufactured in five dif-

ferent States. I commenced manufacturing in Maine when I was 17

vears old; [ manufactured there till IT was 21.) I next started a shop in

N.Y. City. I manutactured there one year. [next went into Eliza-

bethtown, N. Jersey. [ was there two years. i next commenced man-

ufacturing at Bellville, Richland Co., Ohio. I commenced manufact-

uring there in 1851. I manunfsetured milis three years. I next com-

menced at Hudson, Michigan, in 1853. I kept a shop running there till

the war began in 1361.

Int. 3. Did you ever make and sell any such machines having zig-zag

screens and directing-boards ? and if so, produce, if you can, a model of

such machines, and state when and where they were made.

‘Ans. 3. [ have made and sold such machines. This model which I

now produce Is a model of such machines. I commenced making

94 them in Bellville. Richland, County, Ohio, in the year 1552 and

1858. I made trom 30 to 60 per year, and probably a 100 in all. I

might have made 200. I also made them at Hudson, Michigan.

(The model produced by witness filed in evidence, and mi irked Exhibit

Be eal, R. J. W “a

[ut. 4. Describe with reference to the model how, if at all, you varied

the construction from time to time.

Ans. 4. I commenced manfuacturing the zigzag sieves in Belleville,

PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH. Ad

Ohio, using first what I ealled a screen and board over the lower sieve

or screen in order to get a longer run of wheat in a small space. This

was in the early part of 1852. In 18535 I used another sieve over the

board for carrying off material and filth of every kind, wheat falling

on the board to be carried forward. That board was beneath the sieve.

In 1853 I put on the machine what I called the square shake. It is an

even motion shaking both ends alike. In 1856 I still added another sieve

and board above the last, making another series.

Int. 5. What was the direction of what you call the square shake as

related to the direction of the passage of the grain, lateral or longitud-

inal ?

(Question objected to as leading and suggestive.)

Ans. 5. The direction of the grain was opposite to the shake; while the

erain runs forward the sieves shake from side to side.

95 [ut. 6. State whether or not the square shake of which you

speak is correctly shown in the model Exhibit Bean?

(Question objected to as leading.)

Ans. 6. It is.

Int. 7. Please mark with the letter \ the board and sereen which you

say you added in 18056.

Ans. 7. This one marked X has reference to the sieve, and this one

marked XX is the board.

Int. 8. What was the operation on the grain of this sieve and board ?

Ans. 8 The operation of this sieve and board was to get a longer run

of my wheat, thereby carrying off and separating from the wheat a pro-

portion of the coarse material in grain-filth, white caps and vats. The

wheat went through the sieve and the filth was carried off.

Int. 9. When the wheat left the board marked XX state where it

fell, and mark the part triple X.

Ans. 9. It fell on a riddle or sieve beneath it, which I have marked

». Se

Int. 10. From this riddle or sieve where did the grain go and where

the impurities? |

Ans. 10, The grain went through it. The impurities passed over the

whole length of this sieve and fell into the box or drawer.

Int. 11. What became of the grain after it passed through the riddle

marked XXX?

Ans. 11. It falls on a sereen or board. The machine as it now stands

has a screen immediately below the screen nrarked XXX which

GG is shorter than that sereen, underneath: the shorter screen is a

board of the same length. This shorter sereen is marked I and

the board II. In screening grain I use over the board Il sereen marked

I. The grain then passed over the screen marked I and falls on another

sieve or screen. The impurities pass through screen I and fall on the

board II. They pass from that out of the side of the shoe and drop into

the screen box. In case the grain does not want sereening I place t

board II beneath the sieve or riddle XXX. The grain passes over the

board and is brought forward again. It falls on the sieve or screen be-

low it. I use either as the case requires.

Int. 12. After the grain falls on the lower screen or sieve what then is

the operation ?

Ans. 12. If I wish to screen that grain I use a common screen for the

grain to fallon. If not, I use sieve or riddle through which the grain

passes and drops on the board beneath it, and is carried on the board

and passes through a trap-door and drops into the box underneath. If

the grain requires further screening it falls on screen III. The foul seed

£0 PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH.

falls through that screen and on the board marked A; the foul seed then

passes through the trap-door into the sereen-box at the lower end, the

wheat passing over into the wheat-box.

Int. 13. Deseribe now the construction of your fan case and the direc-

tion of the blast in such machines as made by you?

97 Ans. 13. The fan case is constructed at the end of the = or mill

and a little beneath, as shown in the model. The direction of the

blast is forward und upward. I bave varied it from an under to an over

by reversing the motion of the fans.

Int. 14. I notice there are grooves in the inside of the frame or model

Exhibit Bean just at the rear of the fan-box, and also a valve a little

lower down; what were these for?

Ans. 14. They were for the purpose of directing or confining the wind;

it was constructed with a board ranning down in the cireular grooves

in a large machine, down to within ten inches of the cutoff. Upon the

under edge of the board in this circular groove is placed what I call a

mouth pie ce or cutoff, from 4 to 6 inches wide, for the purpose of direct-

ing the blast. This mouth-piece or cutoff, the rear edge was inclined

upwards. The upper cutoit is not shown in the model, but the nail-holes

show where it was inserted. These cutoffs directed the blast between

sieves XXX above and III below.

Int. 15. What knowledge have you as to the practical use and opera-

tion of these machines ?

Ans. 15. My knowledge has been quite extensive. I have used them

myself, and seen them used, and sold them. I have used them in Hud-

son, Michigan, from 1855 to 1860. They gave the best of satisfaction

and worked well.

Int. 16. State, if you know, when the model Exhibit Bean was made.

Ans. 16. According to my best recollection, and I have some

98 evidence to prove it, it was made in the early part of 1855, with

the exception of the parts which show new work,

Int. 17. Have you had any experience with grain-separating machines

in which the sieves add a longitudinal instead of a lateral shape motion ;

and, if so, which, if either, do you consider the better—particularly for

separating oats from wheat ?

Ans. 17. I have had a good deal of experience; I have made hundreds

both ways; I consider the motion which shakes endwise from the fans

or in the direction opposite to the one in the model ** Bean” superior for

the purpose of separating oats from wheat, from the reason that the oat

being the heavier at one end the end motion turns the heavier end for-

ward and slides it over the screen without bobbing it around, while the

wheat, being shorter falls through. |

Cross-examinationu by plaintiffs’ attorney:

Cross 1. When did you stop manufacturing machines after the model

introduced in evidence ?

Ans. 1. Not far from 1860 or 1861, immediately after the bombardment

of Fort Sumpter.

Cross 2. Was the last machine you made like the one a model of

which is now put in evidence in your testimony 7

Ans, 2. No, sir; they were not.

Cross 3. Wherein do they differ ?

Ans. 3. They, the shoe and sie ves, had an end instead of a side mo-

on. |

Cross 4. I’ that all the difference ?

Ans. 4. No, sir.

PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH. "|

Cross 5. State wherein they differed from the model.

99 (Objected to so far as it may relate to any machines made by

witness subsequent to complainant’s alleged invention.)

Ans. 5. The sieve marked III and board marked A moved independ-

ent, or had an independent motion. There was no other main difference

that 1 know of. It was ten years ago, and I made so many changes

I cannot answer definitely.

Cross 6. In the main, all the machines that you did manufacture snb-

stantially resembled the model, did they not ?

Ans. 6. No, sir; they did not, not all the machines I manufactured.

Cross 7. In the main, how did they differ ?

Ans. 7. They differed in the arrangement of my sieves. Sieve marked

X, and its board XX, were not in the main used.

Cross 8. What portion of the model which is now present fairly rep-

resents what vou did manufacture up to the time you stopped ?

Ans. 8. I can state that my machines run with gear wheel instead of

belt, and the machines were made without the screen or board marked

X,and I think they had covered sides, but I am not positive. It strikes

me they did not, but L can’t say. I think the balance was very similar

to the model.

Cross 9. Were the ends of the sieves united in the machine you made,

or were they separated so that the air would pass between the ends?

Ans. 9. The upper sieves, those that were above the blast in this

100 = form of machines were tight toadmit no wind, but were not fast-

ened together.

Cross 10. How many sieves or screens did you ordinarily use in the

machines you manufactured when in use?

Ans. 10. From 4 to 7.

Cross Ll. The only ones, I understand: you to say, that were united,

or fastened together, so as to prevent the air from passing between them,

were the two upper ones?

Ans, 11. That was mainly the case.

Cross 12. Why were not the ends or sides of the others united in your

machines?

Ans. 12. They were placed mostly lower down. The lower two were

not united to the upper two. I left them open to get the fall of grain,

one thing for the blast to pass through.

Cross 13. You left the space open between some of the sieves in order

that the air from the fans might pass through the grain in its fall from

one sieve to another, did you not?

Ans. 13. I did.

Cross 14. Now, look at the model and state whether the ends of the

two last sieves come together.

Ans. 14. Sometimes I did use them that came together for certain

kinds of grain. They do not in the model.

Cross 15. What kind of grain do you refer to when you use the two

last sieves with the ends conuected together ?

Ans. 15. Cleaning wheat that is very filthy.

101 Cross 16. Can you tell wherein the machines manufactured ac-

cording to this model differ from the old fashioned fanning mill ?

I’mean substantially differ in the operation and results. Confine your-

self in your answer fairly to the question.

(Objected to for indefiniteness, and that it does not anywhere appear

in this case what the old fashioned fanning-mill was, and the old fash-

ioned fanning-mills familiar to the counsel and to the witness may have

been, and probably were, very different.)

PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH.

oe

Ans. 17. I can. By the arrangement of this machine I get a longer

run of the wheat and a double sifting in a smaller space than in the old

fashioned machines, thereby cleaning the wheat more perfectly.

Cross 18. Is there no other difference ?

Ans. 18. There is.

Cross 19. What is it?

Aus. 19. The wheat passes through more screens and sieves, with

boards beneath for the purpose of carrying the wheat back and sifting

it over. It has a short motion, quicker than the motion in the old fash-

ioned mills, and having a square shake instead of a switch motion at-

tached to one end.

Cross 20. Did not the old fashioned fanning-mill have from 4 to 7

movable and inclined sieves like your model has ?

Ans. 20. No, sir.

Cross 21. How many did you ever see in a fanning: mill ?

Ans. 21. Usually from 3 to 4. |

Cross 22. Did you ever see more than that number ?

102 (The foregoing and all further cross examination relating to the

old fashioned fanning-mills objected to as not proper cross-exam-

ination.)

Ans. 22. I have.

Cross 23. Did not the old fanning-mill have the same lateral motion

of the sieves that your model represents ? |

Ans. 25. None that I ever saw had.

Cross 24. Wasn’t it about the same motion—crossways, sideways of

the machine?

Ans. 24. They had what I eall the switch motion—crossways—one

end moving turther than the other.

Cross 25. Did not the air blow through from the fan between the

sieves just as it does in your model and tor the same purpose ?

Ans. 25. No, sir; it didn’t blow through just as it does in the model.

Cross 26. What difference was there? .

Ans. 26. There is no mouth-piece in those machines for directing the

wind.

Cross 27. In the manufacture of these machines that you have re-

ferred to, and which you say were substantially like the model, what

name did you call them?

Ans. 27. I manufactured those machines, or similar ones, under differ-

ent names. Icalled this machine Keller’s patent, improved and manu-

factured by J. Bean. Hudson machine was on the machine. I called

it a grain-seperator.

Cross 28. WI when you speak of a zigzag screen or

screens when referring to your model? Please explain.

103 Ans. 28. I mean a double series of sieves inclined out, so that

passes down over a zigzag plain, first out and then

lat GO you mead

the eran On fi

Lid SS |

tia Si a 9 ct i

back.

Cross 29. Did you ever make a zigzag sieve ?

Ans, 29. I have by putting two together.

Cross 30. When and how? |

Ans. 30. In my separator, as desecribéd in the model.

Cross 31. Now in your model will you please state where you find the

first zigzag sieve?

Aus. 31. The first series commence under the hopper, marked X, with

its board, marked X X, beneath it. ,

Cross 32. Where is the next zigzag sieve ?

. :

- 7 Be ee ve fh +a SeesBakb at Laie eM * Sat Bi EAM ON 2 abi »

AIR ett EL SPR | al ele Pe eR freee SE a htoctimammees SO OS

PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH. 49

Ans. 32. Beneath X, and the sieve is marked X X X. With its board

both of them form a zigzag; there are three.

Cross 33. Where is the third one ?

Ans. 33. Beneath the upper one.

Cross 34. Is the same operation performed by each sieve until it (the

grain) passes through the whole of them ?

(Objected to for the reason that the witness has already answered the

question by explaining the operation of each sieve separately.)

Ans. 34. That depends upon the kind of grain I wish to clean—the

State it is in.

Cross 35. How long have you known the defendants Parks, Turner,

Taylor, and Vaughan ?

Ans. 50. I do not know them at all only by name, only as a firm. I

would not know them one from another certainly.

104 Cross 36. Who sent for you to come here to testify?

Ans. 36. A letter was signed by the firm. I cannot tell you

who. )

Cross 37. Where did you find this model ?

Ans. 37. I found it in the hands of Alonzo Palmer, Hudson, Michi-

gan. He lived in Pittsford at the time.

Cross 38. When did you first hear of the firm of Turner, Parks & Co.?

Ans. 38. One year ago last fall.

Cross 39. When did you first have an interview with any member of

the firm on the subject of this suit ?

Ans, 39. It was some time during the fore part of last fall, 1 think, at

my shop, in Hudson, Michigan. It was the grayish, shortish man who

was there this afternoon—a little stooping. I have been introduced

to them all, but I am so forgetful of names that 1 cannot remember any

one of them.

Cross 40. How many of the machines that you -have described did

you mannfacture with that upper sieve ?

Ans. 40. I can’t say certain, but not a great many.

Cross 41. Did you ever manufacture more than one?

Ans. 41. We did, according to the best of my recollection ; generally

manufactured them without.

105 - Cross 42. Can you tell the name of a single person to whom

you ever sold one of those machines with the upper sieve as rep-

resented in the model ?

Ans. 42. I cannot; they went in with the other mills, and were sold.

It is so long ago 1 can’t remember.

Adjourned till 7 p. m.

Resumed:

Cross 43. When did you make this upper sieve as now in the model ?

Ans. 45, Last week.

Cross 44. Did the machine you made with this upper sieve have the

perforated zine piece attached to the upper sieve as represented in the

model ?

Ans, 44. I eannot tell you. I have forgotten which I used. I used

both at the time, but do not know which I put there.

Yross 45. Do you mean to swear that you ever used a piece of per-

forated zine, with holes in the same, in the machines made by you as

represented in the upper sieve in the model ?

Ans, 45. I do.

Cross 46. When?

LEC. 235—4

ae a a pr at ne eee

5O PARKS ET AL. VS BOOTH.

Ans. 46. I have used it in the year 1856, 1857, and 1558, in nearly all

of the machines I then manufactured.

Cross 47. Did you use in those machines the perforated zine as repre-

sented in the upper sieve of your model ?

106 (Objected to as ambiguous, it not being clear from the question

whether the use of such a plate in the upper sieve alone is meant,

or in any sieve of the machine.) :

Ans. 47. I do not understand whether you mean the perforated zine

upon that identical sieve or whether it has relation to the ones below it.

Cross 48. You see before vou a part of your model called the upper

sieve, and on it there is a piece of perforated zine. I want to know if

in the manufacture of your machines, previous to 1861, you put a piece

of zine on the top of the upper sieve of these in the same way and of

the same kind, and the same sized holes as is on the upper sieve of the

model ?

(Question objected to, because it has been already answered.)

Ans. 48. Iswear that I used zine on my sieves of the same kind, but

vannot say whether Il used it on the identical sieve which I represent

in this model. If I did not use it on the sieve marked X, I used it on

the sieve marked XXX,

Cross 49. What d fierence was there, in the machines you manufac.

tured, in the operation on the grain of each sieve until it passed through ?

Ans. 49. That varied in proportion to the kind of grain I used

107 and what I wished to do to it. |

Cross 00.. Were the meshes in the sieve used by you of a uni-

form size, or did they vary in size in the different sieves ?

Ans. 50. The zine sieves were all alike, of the same size. The other

screen varied in proportion to the different kind of grain I wished to

clean.

Cross 51. Does the wheat, if you are cleaning wheat, run over or

through the last sieve in your machine?

Ans. It runs through it, providing I do not wish to screen it.

Cross 52. To whom did you generally sell these machines you manu-

factured ?

Ans. 52. Almost invariably to farmers. I put one into S. M. Winks’

grist-mill, at Hudson, Michigan. |

Redirect examination:

int. 18. When did you put the machine into Winks’ grist-mill, as tes-

tified by you in your last answer? and state, if you know, how it oper-

ated—that is, whether satisfa

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.