# 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 > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Aper_scotus_1879_284_0%3A0 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Record and brief - **Published:** January 1, 1879 ## Text 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 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 = 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 .............» 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 | 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 ‘ ' ; . ’ - + 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* 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 on mm fe = } VW) f5 a | ae Q2 O —— -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 . ¢ . 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 = 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. . 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 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 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... 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 | $0 LLOQ &) 140 00 140 120 PARKS ET AL. VS. BOOTH. 25 Statement filed with master’s report—Continued. i - ¢ shew see eee een eeeeaneneeeaeaeeeeneer eens epee ee een ene eeesrseene SO eee eee eee ee PRE EEO ae eee ae ee Sa i a Cea. a. a eee aN Rey Se NG ee ae Te yea) Le ol SOR eS Ee eg eee y= tien ho okuw wee i ! ° | i we CO WO WO 0D @ bea z =) ’ to I ] 2 AY ft Se eee jes eve déendeasucete soduceeas | } Halteman..... I aL i i a le cele eat 2— 2 14 eR OP ee on ee ea ete Pree ae ha agen CCN FEN S Pee RP aN Pee icaades 2—J3 I>) ; i Todd Ri I Sa os BS wa a A il po od 2 lage sae ie poy Shane = 2 - i —+4 150 i TI Ae ee hs eh ae i Na EN ey i a re a ee a pare i—4 ~aJU ? > mm i) Kove BR oe enn ree ee ee a ee ee et ~ uN ri r ‘ ht +} passer & GO isnditadccas ai comic: Jo ood wala cob aateebs aes 2 . L 1:43 00 ian 256 350 4 kK. Halt i Z aad Diss PER een Sai, (coh fat as 5 —4 1 +i ) » al I 8 a a a a os eee ; 2— 2 13 J. L. Mille aus i a aa ae ee ee [9 100 "OGG Ge 430... oo ccs Sd dl aa aa . Ee eee eee im a Se tee }$—.} } J. H. Snanliding...... NERS ee Rr am OE as Pe MoE eRe } « 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 - 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! 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 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 ; = 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. Th [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Aper_scotus_1879_284_0%3A0. Public record. Not legal advice.