Record and brief — Gideon Bantz, Appellant, vs. David Fantz et al

Supreme Court brief1881

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

—_——

a ei le

eee eS — oe

awh peace =

‘ /

: ;

‘4

TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD.

SUPREME COURT OF ThE UNTTED STATES.

No. 3380-7 S&S

GIDEON BANTZ, APPELLANT,

VS.

DAVID FRANTZ ET AL.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY.

FILED NOVEMBER 9%, L878.

‘

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 330.

GIDEON BANIZ, APPELLANT,

Vs.

DAVID FRANTZ ET AL.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY.

INDEX.

Original. Print.

Marshal’s return; answer to bill 14

Demand for dismissal by respondent

Replication lodged in clerk’s office

Consent order to file replication, nunc pro tune

Replication

Notice to take testimony orally

Order to extend time for taking testimony

Stipulation

Notice to respondents to take deposition

Deposition of J. F. Troohbig

Frank Millward

Cross-examination of Frank Millward

Deposition of David Frantz

Frederick Kennel

Stipulation

Comniission

Testimony of Gideon Bantz ......-.-.--..-...

Certificate and commission

Testimony of

Original. Print.

ee ci Cae BbOMe bege een i ueie Sous

ae TONE RT ACIP Rene epee ee a

EE NEO E s EO OE Ee RN REN ODE ee

Notice to respondents to take testimony ..-..--..--.--.- nese +0000 cote ewes

Deposition of

Exhibits A and B. . Extract from letters and bill for freight....-..-...--. :

Exhibit Moses Thompson tile wrapper and contents........-....-....----

ides Wee Wateledeibinwe wide

a a i ik a alas Se kee belie web ewes

Bond for costs

I ete ae iy ae. we

see «@ “se @eneereeeeee + eee ee ewe we emlc Cle eee ermlc Cee eee twee Vw rrr er eC ele hUhUcrhhlUlc CU ee

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 1

1 Proceedings of the circuit court of the United States for the dis-

trict of Kentucky, at a regular term begun and held at the Fed-

era] court hall, in the city of Covington, on Monday, May 13th, 1878,

and of our Independence the 102d year.

Present, Hon. Bland Ballard, judge of the United States for the dis-

trict of Kentucky.

Be it remembered that heretofore, to wit, on May 4th, A. D. 1876,

came the complainant, by his solicitors, Messrs. Hatch & Parkinson,

and filed in the clerk’s office of our said court his bill of complaint,

which said bill of complaint is in the words and figures following, to

wit:

Bill.

Circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky. In

equity.

GIDEON BANTZ

U8.

DAVID FRANTZ, DAVID FRANTZ, JR., GEO. W.

Frantz, and D. Frantz & Sons.

To the honorable the judges of the circuit court of the United States

for the district of Kentucky.

Gideon Bantz, a citizen of the State of Maryland, and residing at

Frederick City, in said State, brings this his bill of complaint against

David Frantz, David Frantz, jr., and Geo. W. Frantz, partners, doing

business in Louisville, in the State of Kentucky, and residents of said

Louisville, State of Kentucky, and citizens of the said State of Kentucky,

_and of the United States, and thereupon your orator complains and says:

That heretofore, and before the 22d day of June, A. D. 1858, your

orator was the original and first inventor of an improvement in boiler

furnaces for burning wet fuel, fully described in the letters patent here-

inafter mentioned, and which had not been known or used before his

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

patent, as hereinafter mentioned, in public use or on sale with his con-

sent or allowance. .

And your orator, on information and belief, further shows unto your

honors, that he being so-as aforesaid the first inventor and discoverer

of said improvement, and being also a citizen of the United States, did,

on June 22d, 1858, upon due application therefor, obtain letters

2 patent of the United States for said invention, in due form of

law, under the seal of the Patent Office of the Unifed States,

signed by the Secretary of the Interior, and countersigned by the Com-

missioner of Patents of the United States, bearing date the day and

year last aforesaid, whereby there was granted and secured to him, the

said Gideon Bantz, his heirs, administrators, or assigns, or intended so

to be, for the term of fourteen years from and after the date of said let-

ters patent, the fall and exclusive right and liberty of making, con-

structing, using and vending to others to be used, the said invetition

and improvement, as set forth in said letters patent, which are now of

record in the Patent Office of the United States, and by virtue whereof

your orator became and now is the sole owner of all the rights and

REC. 330—1

ees

AO te aecete

wenn m2 ne owe eupnenngttimemenninetatts

aatintieianciie. caaet han tee ERR Oe ope

;

2 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL.

privileges granted and secured, or intended to be granted and secured,

in and by said letters-patent.

And your orator further shows unto your honors, that he having for

good and lawful cause surrendered said letters patent to the Commis-

sioner of Patents, and having made due application therefor, and having

in all things complied with the acts of Congress in such case made and

provided, did, on the 6th day ot February, 1872, obtain new letters patent,

being for ‘the same invention, for the re sidue ot said term, and which were

marked Reissue No. 4751, and were issued in due form of law, under the

seal of the Patent Office of the United States, signed by the Se cretary ot

the Interior and countersigned by the Commissioner of Patents, and bear-

ing date the day and year aforesaid, as by the said last mentioned let-

ters patent, or a certified copy of the same, now in court ready to be

produced, or by the copy of the same attached to this bill and marked

Schedule A, will more‘tully and at large appear.

And your orator turther shows unto your honors, that on or about

20th day of Mareh, 1872, he made application tor the extension of the

term of said last mentioned reissued letters patent, No. 4731, for seven

years trom and after June 22d, 1872, and after full examination by the

Commissioner of Patents, the extension was granted, and said letters

patent were, by the ceruticate of said Commissioner, declared to have

the same effect as lf originally granted for twenty-one years.

And your orator further shows unto your honors, that by virtue of

the premises he became, and now is, the sole and exclusive owner of

said reissued and extended letters patent No. 4731, and the inventions

and improvements deseri bed therein, and of all the rights and privileges

granted and secured, or intended to be granted and secured, thereby.

And that since he became the owner thereof as aforesaid, he has invest-

ed and expended large sums of money, and has been to great trouble

in and about said invention, and for the purpose of carrying on the

business of making and vending said improvement in boiler furnaces

for burning wet fuel, and making the same profitable to himself and

useful to the public; and that the said invention has been and is of

great benefit and advantage ; and that many persons have beep licensed

by your orator to use said improvements, to the great advantage of the

public ; and thatthe public have generally acknowledged and acquiesced

in the aforesaid rights of your orator; and your orator believes that he

will realize and receive large gains and profits theretrom, if infringe-

ment by said defendants and their confederates shall be prevented.

And your orator further shows unto your honors, that after the ex-

tension aforesaid, to wit, about November 22d, 1872, he filed a bill in

equity in the circuit court of the United States for the southern district

of Ohio, against Jacob Elsas and Samuel Pritz, of Cincinnati, Ohio;

that the defendants in that case appeared by counsel, and filed an an-

swer, alleging among other things, that the reissued letters patent were

void because they were for a different invention from the original; be-

cause new matter was introduced therein; that the patented inventions

were in public use tor more than two years prior to the application for

the letters patent; that the said invention had been invented and used

by the following persons prior to the alleged invention of your orator,

to wit:

J.C. Baum, at his chemical factory, then situated on Branch street,

in the rear of No. 53 Dunlap street, in the city of Cincinnati, Ohio.

Michael Eekert, who resides at No. 338 Bank street, in the city of

Cincinnati, Ohio, at his tannery, at No. 534 Central-av enue, in said city

of Cincinnati.

2 RO ae, te Patina

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 3- ty

3 F. Bodman, of Cincinnati, Ohio, at his tannery, at No. 623 West t

Sixth street, in said city. i i

D. H. Taylor & Co., at their tannery, in said city of Cincinnati.

That a large mass of testimony was taken in said suit; that ample

time was given to the defendauts to make a full defense to said actions;

a that the defendants were assisted in their defense by a large number of ;

tanuers who were unlawfully using furnaces similar to those of defend-

ants in said case; and that said tanners contrivuted to the payment of

the expenses of said suit; that said case came on to final hearing. on

pleadings and proofs in June, 1874, before honorable Philip Swing, jndge

of said court, and was fully argued by counsel for both parties, and after

full consideration, the court found that the said reissued letters patent,

No. 4731, and the extension thereof, were good and valid; and that the

g defendants had infringed the same, and granted a perpetual injunction

against the defendants, and directed an account of protits and damages

to be taken, as, by a copy of the decree in said case hereto annexed, aud

marked Schedule 6B, will fully appear.

And your orator further shows unto your honors that upon the com-

ing in of the master’s report, which found that complainant in said case

i was entitled to recover from defendants the sum of $500, as the sum

at which the complainant licenses parties to use each turnace con-

structed in accordance with his said patent, a final decree was entered

for the complainant by the honorable Philip B. Swing, judge of said

sae win adjudging :

Ist. That the reissued and extended letters patent, No. 4731, are good

and valid in law.

2nd. That the defendants bad infringed the same.

) 3rd. That the defendants pay to complainant the sum of $500, and also

“ that the defendants pay the costs of the suit; which decree is here in

court ready to be produced, and that said judgment has been satisfied,

and no appeal taken.

* And your orator further shows unto your honors, that the tanners in

and around Cincinnati using furnaces for burning wet fuel, substantially

such as that enjoined in the said suit, have aequiesved in said decree,

and have paid license fees to your orator for the use of their said fur-

naces, among whom arethe following: E. ms D. Nepper, Lang & Wan-

ner, G. Rv Martin & Sons, Louis C. Bardes, J. F. Forbus & Co., Gottlieb

Holder, D. H. Taylor & Co., J. & J. G saan G. ©. Spiegel, Scheu &

Leist, H. Rasche & Son, H. Freiberg, A. Steigler & Co., Louis Ballauf,

Meier & Lockwood, Michael Eckert, W. W. Snodgrass & Sons, Jacob

Dewald, as have alsothe Dayton Leather & Collar Co., of Dayton, Ohio,

and Curme, Dunn & Co., of Richmond, Ind.

" Yet the said detendants, well knowing the premises, and the rights

secured to your orator aforesaid, but contriving to injure your orator,

aud to deprive him of the benefits and advantages which might, and

otherwise would, accrue unto him from said invention, after the, issuing

of the reissued letters patent No. 4751, as atoresaid, and before the com-

mencement of this suit, did, as your orator is informed apd believes,

without the license or allowance, and against the will of your orator,

and in violation of his rights and ip infringement of the aforesaid reis-

: sued letters patent, extended as aforesaid, unlawfally and wrongfully,

and in defiance of the rights of your orator, make, construct, and use the

said invention, aud did make, construct, and use boiler furnaces made

according to, and employing and containing said invention, and that

they still continue so todo; and that they are threatening to make the

aforesaid boiler furnaces in large quantities aud to use the same, and

a sek ete ee

4 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL.

that said manufacture and ase of said boiler furnaces has been and is

without the license or consent of your orator, and against his will, and in

violation of his rights, and is an infringement of the aforesaid reissued

letters patent No. 4731, so granted and extended as aforesaid, and that

said unlawful acts and infringements have been committed by said de-

fendant with a full knowledge of the rights of your orator, and in defi-

ance of bis rights.

And your orator farther shows unto ,our honors that the furnaces so

made and used as aforesaid, by the defendants herein, are substantially

the same as those which were made and used by the defetidants in the.

suit at Cincinnati, heretofore mentioned in this bill.

4 Allin defiance of the rights acquired by and secured to your

orator, as aforesaid, and to his great and irreparable loss and in-

jury,and by which he has been, and still is being deprived of great

gains and profits which he might, and otherwise would have obtained, |

but which have been received and enjoyed, and are being received and

enjoyed by the said defendants, by and through their aforesaid unlawful

acts and doings.

And your orator furtber shows unto your honors, on information and

belief, that said defendants used said furnacesto a great extent, andare

continuing to use the same extensively in business, and threatening to

make more of the same, and have made and realized large profits aud

advantages therefrom; but to what extent, and how much exactly, your

orator does not know, and prays a discovery thereof; and your orator

says that the use of the said invention by said defendants, and their

preparation for and avowed determination to continne the same, and

their other aforesaid unlawful acts in distegard and in defiance of the

rights of your orator, bave the effect to and do encourage and induce

others to venture to infringe said patent in disregard of vour orator’s

rights. ;

And your orator further shows unto your honors, that be has caused

notice to be given to said defendants of said infringements, and of the

rights of your orator in the premises, and requested them to desist and

retrain therefrom ; but they have di- regarded said notice, and refused to

desist from said infringements, and still coutinue to make and use said

boiler furnaces for burning wet tuel.

And forasmuch as your orator can have no adequate relief, except in

this court; tothe end, theretore, that the said defendants may, if they

coin, show why your orator should not have the relief hereby prayed, and

may, according to their best and atmost knowledge, remembrance, in-

formation, and belief, full, true, direct, and perfect answers make to

the premises, and to all the several matters hereinbetore stated and

charged, as fully and particularly as if severally and separately inter-

rogated as to each and every of said matters, and may be compelled to

account for and pay to your orator the profits by them acquired, and

three times the damages suffered by your orator from the aforesaid un-

lawful acts.

Aud yout orator prays that said defendants, David Frantz, David

Krantz, jr., Geo. W. Frautz, and D. Frantz & Sous, Uieir servants,

agents, attorneys, and workmen, and each and every of them, may be

restrained and enjoined, provisionally and perpetually, by the order

and injunction of this honorable court, from directly or indirectly mak-

ing, constructing, using, vending, Celivering, working, or putting into

practice, operation, or use, or in anywise counterfeiting or imitative

the said invention, or any part thereot, or any bolier turnace tor buru-

ing wet fuel wade in accordance therewiti, or like or similar to those

oo — .

= -

' true of his own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated on

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 5

which they have heretofore male; and that the said defendants may

be decreed to pay the costs of this suit; and that your orator may have

such further relief, or such other relief as to this honorable court shall

seem meet, and as shall be agreeable to equity.

May it please your honors to grant unto your orator the writ of in-

junction, as well provisional as perpetual, issuing out of and under the

seal of this honorable court, commanding, enjoining, and restraining

the said defendants, David Frantz, David Frantz, jr., Geo. W. Frantz,

and D. Frantz & Sons, their servants, agents, attorneys, and workmen,

and each and every of them, as is hereinbefore in that behalf prayed.

May it please your honors to grant unto your orator the writ of sab

poena issuing out of and under the seal of this honorable court, direct-

ed to the said defendants, David Frantz, David Frantz, jr., Geo. W.

Frantz, and D. Frantz & Sons, commanding them by a certain day, and

under a certain penalty, to be and appear in this honorable court, then

and there to answer the premises, and to stand to and abide such order

and decree as may be made against them.

And your orator will ever pray, ete.

GIDEON BANTZ.

HATCH & PARKINSON,

Complainant’s Solicitors.

HATCH & PARKINSON,

Counsel.

5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

) District of Maryland, ss :

On this 13th day of April, 1876, before me personally appeared Gideon

Bantz, the above named complainant, who, being by me duly sworn, de-

poses and says that he has read the foregoing bill of complaint sub-

scribed by him, and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is

information and belief, and as to those matters he believes it to be

true.

[SEAL. | B. LYON RODGERS,

U. S. Commissioner for Maryland.

The United States of America to all to whom these letters patent shall

SCHEDULE A.

come: '

Whereas Gideon Bantz, of Frederick City, Maryland, has alleged that

he has invented a new and useful improvement in furnaces tor burning '

wet fuel (tor which letters patent were issued to him June 22d, 1858,

which said letters having been surrendered, the same have been can-

celled, and new letters ordered to issue to him on an amended specifica-

tion), and has made oath that he is a citizen of the United States; that

he verily believes that he is the original and first inventor or dis- |

ecoverer of the said improvement, and that the same hath not, to his

knowledge and belief, been previously known or used; has paid into the

Treasury of the United States the sum of thirty dollars, and presented

a petition to the Commissioner of Patents, praying that a patent may

be issued therefor :

These are, theretore, to grant unto the said Gideon Bantz, his execu-

tors, administrators, or assigns, for the term of fourteen years from

the twenty-second day of June, one thousand eight hundred and fiftv-

eRe RARE mE Ht

Se ams coe eee scceinemnaaticnininessieesoetlasateiaatiahtant tein NER ATLL ELAINE OT TAN

= ports

pores

ee ee

FORO ree pleas RB re ee Ree

A NR EAE ER NORE NT ee

6 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL.

eight, the full and exclusive right and liberty of making, using, and

vending to others to be used, the said improvement, a description

whereof is given in the annexed schedule and made a part of these

presents.

In testimony whereof I have caused these letters to be made patent

and the seal of the Patent Office to be hereunto affixed.

Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this sixth day of Feb-

rnary, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-

two, and of the Independence of the United States of the ninety-sixth.

B. R. COWEN,

Acting Secretary of the Interior.

Countersigned and sealed with the seal of the Patent Office.

[L. S.] M. D. LEGGETT,

Commissioner of Patents.

4731.

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE.

Gideon Bantz, of Frederick, Maryland. Improvement in boiler fur-

naces for burning wet fuel.

Specifications forming part of letters patent No. 26616, dated June 22,

1858, reissue No. 4731, dated February 6, 1872.

To all whom it may concern :

Be it known that I, Gideon Bantz, of Frederick City, in the county of

Frederick, in the State of Maryland, have invented a new and useful

improvement in furnaces for burning wet fuel; and Ido hereby declare

that the following is a full, clear, and exact description of the same,

reference being had to the accompanying drawing forming a part of this

specification, and in which—

Fig. 1 represents a longitudinal vertical section of a furnace embrac-

ing my invention, and showing its application to a steam-boiler.

6 Figure 2 represents a transverse vertical section through the

fire-chamber in the plane indicated by the line «a of Fig. lL.

Figure 3 represents a transverse section through one of the reverber-

atory chambers in the plane indieated by the line y y of Fig. 1.

Similar letters of reference in each of the several figures indicate cor-

responding parts.

To enable others skilled in the art to make and use my invention, I

proceed to describe its construction and operation.

A A are two arched fire-chambers, arranged side by side, furnished

with grates a a, and having ash-pits B B provided below the said grates.

These fire-chambers are not placed beneath the boiler H, but directly

in front thereof, and longitudinally therewith. They may, however, be

placed at one side of the boiler, and at an angle to it. Each is provided

with the usual door b, but these are only used for lighting the fires ; and

the ash-pits are provided with doors ¢ to regulate the supply of air

through the grates, and permit the clearing out of ashes. In the top

of each chamber there are openings d d for supplying the fuel to the

furnaces. The fire-chambers are covered with a flat floor built over

the arches that the fuel may be wheeled to the feeders in barrows, or

brought in any other convenient manner. This floor and the fire-cham-

ber arches are about eighteen inches thick from the crown of the fire-

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 7

chamber to the top surface, and on either side of the feeding openings

d I torm, between the arches and the floor, dead chambers da’, which are

fitted with ashes or other material, which will prevent the heat of the

ashes from penetrating through the floor, and thus the latter is always

kept cool for the engineer and workmen, which is a great advantage in

this form of furnace.

The dimensions of the fire-chambers which I have found to produce

the best results with wet tan, are, in height, three feet, four feet wide,

and eight feet long; and the lids of the feeders should be set in the

openings d, near the crown of the arch, so as to keep the heat in the

chamber as much as possible.

The boiler is supported directly upon the rear wall of the furnace, and

is outside of and elevated above the fire-chamber, so that the heat issa-

ing therefrom is caused to impinge directly upon the boiler. This is

practically the successful feature of the furnace, the results and benefits

of which have not hitherto been attained, as the boiler not only receives

the heat from the rear wall of the furnace, but the entire heat of the fire-

chamber is concentrated directly upon it in a chamber where the com-

bustion is intensified. The rear end of the boiler is supported upon the

wall which forms the dividing flue E, and the heat from the reverbera-

tory chamber is held by said wall close under the rear end of the boiler.

At the rear end of each fire-chamber there is a throat-like aperature e,

communicating directly with the reservoir C, which is built of brick,

and lined with fire-brick directly under the front portion of the boiler,

and which has a concave bottom m, and convex back n, which are con-

structed in a cima-reversa shape.

By having the bottom and back of the reservoir formed in this way,

the throats e are not partially closed up, as they would be if the bottom

was flat and set inclined. And besides this, the heated products of

combustion are made to hug the bottom of the boiler, and as the draught

is at this point, the perfect combustion of partially ignited gasses is

efiected. The convex back of the reservoir terminates in, and serves

as a bridge-wall, and has a concave top, so formed as to leave a space o

_ of but three or four inches between it and the boiler, as shown in Fig. 3

of the drawing. In the rear of the bridge-wall f there is a series of re-

verberatory chambers D D D, two, three, or more, one behind the other,

the series extending nearly as far as the rear end of the boiler, and the

said chambers being separated from each other by bridge-walls gg, and

each chamber being provided with one or more doors fh, in either or

both sides, for the purpose of admitting air in small quantities to com-

plete the combustion of the gasses from the fire-chambers, or a greater

supply to check the draught.

7 The combustion-reservoir is furnished with a door or doors, h’,

to admit air therein, directly in contact with the products of com-

bustion from the fire-chambers, to increase their combustion at the point

of the greatest heat beneath the boiler. At the rear of the hindmost

reverberatory chamber there is a wall, g, like the bridge-wall g g, behind

which there is a diving or drop-flue, E, leading to the chimney, and

which communicates with the reverberatory chambers by means of a

small opening in the wall g/ directly beneath the rear end of the boiler.

This arrangement of the diving-flue serves two highly important and

advantageous purposes, viz: To cause the heat to hug the rear portion

of the boiler, and to extinguish the sparks from the furnace; but the

manner in which it effects the retention of the heat beneath the rear

portion of the boiler causes the latter to be heated nearly uniformly

throughout its entire length, a result which could not be attained if the

8 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL.

heat was allowed to pass off rapidly at the rear of the flue beneath the

boiler, as heretofore. This diving-flue, E, is formed by means of two

walls, g' and g’, the latter serving the additional purpose of a support

for the rear end of the boiler, and the wall g' constituting the rear side

of the rear reverberatory chamber D, the chimney or smoke stack being

formed outside of the rear wall of the diving-flue; and the two com-

municating some distance beneath the boiler, as shown in Fig. 1 of the

drawing.

The operation of the furnace is as follows: Only the rear portion of

the fire-chambers having been filled with wet fuel through the rear

feeders d, a fire of dry fuel is kindled in their front portions, the doors

of the fire-chambers are closed, and the doors of the ash-pits B partially

opened for a draught. The fire from the dry fuel soon heats the fire-,

chambers, and also dries and ignites thetan. The hot ashes falling into

the ash-pits heat the same, and soon the whole mass of wet fuel will be-

come heated and a mass of smouldering fire. The fire-chambers being

heated to a very high degree, the doors of the ash-pits are nearly closed,

and the chambers filled with wet fuel, which piles up on the grates in

a conical form, leaving but comparatively a thin layer all around the

edges of the grate, so as to allow of a draught through the grate and to

burn more readily.

The products of combustion pass from the fire chambers into the res-

ervoir or chamber C in the rear, and under the front end of the boiler,

and to extinguish the sparks from the furnace ; but the manner in which

it effects the retention of the heat beneath the rear portion of the boiler,

where it comes into contact with a certain amount of atmospheric air,

admitted through the doors h’, and produces the most intense heat in

their union, effecting a more complete consumption of the products of

combustion. This union takes place in the reservoir directly under the

front of the boiler, and is, therefore, utilized at the point where it gives

out its heat directly upon the same; and without this union of atmos-

pheric air and gases at this point the largest amount of heat would be

lost, because it could nowhere else be concentrated with such effect upon

the boiler outside of the fire-chambers.

The products of this combustion pass over the bridge-walls into and

through the several reverberatory chambers, in each of which a portion

of their heat is absorbed by contact with the boiler, and finally they

descend the flae E to the chimney. The effect of the principal portion

of my invention, which consists in the arrangement and location of the

reservoir ©, with respect to the boiler and the fire-chambers, is, that the

products of combustion and heat are caused to leave the fire-chambers

through the throats ee in immediate and direct contact with the boiler,

and the said chambers and reservoir are consequently caused to be

heated to an intense degree, and to give out that intense heat upon the

boiler without passing through an intermediate flue, while, at the same

time, the boiler occupies no space within or above the fire-chambers. A

very important feature ir this furnace is the location of the combustion

reservoir above the fire-chambers, as thereby the products of combustion

are not forced out of a natural draught, but merely follow their natural

tendency to rise in said reservoir.

8 The door or doors f’ in the combustion-reservoir C serve to

admit any desired quantity of atmospheric air to this reservoir

or chamber, and the amount admitted may be, as is required by differ-

ent circumstances, regulated by the opening or closing of said doors;

and thereby affords not only a very convenient, but a very durable and

cheap means of effecting this. At night, or any time when no steam is

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 9

required from the boiler, or when high heat is not required, the two

front feeders should be filled up with fresh fuel, the ash-pit doors closed

up, and one or more of the doors Ah in the reverberatory chambers

opened to stop the draught beneath the boiler, and the fire will smoulder

and keep in such a degree of heat that on the doors hh being closed,

and the ash-pit doors being opened, the fires will instantly burn bright,

and the boiler heated by the furnaces may be at once ready for opera-

tion. The doors hh in the reverberatory chambers, besides being used

to admit cool air in sufficient quantity to prevent draught and keep the

fire damped, serve also to admit air in more limited quantities to effect

the combustion in the reverberatory chambers of any inflam’able gasses

that may pass the combustion chamber C.

I do not claim a furnace for burning wet fuel, broadly, nor the use of

a series of fire-chambers connecting with the common flue, arranged

between the furnace and the boiler, as I am well aware that this has

been done before.

Having described my invention, I claim—

1. In a furnace for burning wet fuels, having two or more single fire-

chambers not arranged under the boiler, the combustion-chamber or

reservoir C, arranged above the top of said fire-chambers, and located

directly under the front end of the boiler, essentially as described.

2. The cima-reversa bottom m n of the combustion-chamber or reser-

voir C, in combination with the narrow throats e of the separate fire-

chambers, and the narrow exit flue o of the bridge-walls /, for the pur-

pose essentially as described.

3. In combination with the combustion-chamber or reservoir ©, ar-

ranged and located as described, I claim the side door or doors h’, for

the admission of atmospheric air, for the purpose described.

4. In combination with a series of fire-chambers A, and the combus-

tions-chamber or reservoir C, located and arranged directly beneath the

- front end of the boiler, and above the crown of said fire-chamber, I claim

a series of reverberatory chambers, D, provided with side doors h, and

a diving flue, E, at the rear end of the boiler to hold the heat beneath

the same throughout its entire length, and to arrest and deaden the

sparks as described.

5. In a farnace for burning wet fuels in which the fire-chambers are

not arranged under the. boiler, I claim the arrangement of the boiler

upon the rear wall of the furnace and the rear wall of the diving-flue E,

for the purpose of obtaining the full advantage of the heat of the walls

of the furnace, and of the diving-flue, as described.

6. In a furnace for burning wet fuels, having a flat top, and supplied

through openings therein, I claim the dead-chambers, arranged between

the floor and the arches of the fire-chambers, for the purpose of main-

taining the top of the furnace cool for the workingmen, as described.

GIDEON BANTZ.,

Witnesses :

A. E. H. JOHNSON,

ALEX’R A. C. KLAUCKE,

10 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL.

9 Gideon Bantz.

No. 4731.

+ |

a aed Sia -

// TT; " PTT, ae

pa Sen dae Chaeee ne uel

A shihs

Fic. |.

WM ttt

~ ¢ <<

Improvement in boiler furnaces for burning wet

fuel.

Reissued Feb. 6, 1872.

SOOT.

(A 44 “yf

; Yj Lc "/

S44 444d A

"ff

‘

{

J /

/ r

s A

Aff J

4 ee,

wun mas

f a, ;

‘ .

s.ANS SN!

a ae ate aaa y

III IT ITI I

SAA. ff 7? A

VAM S wy J ra

PID IIII III OI IDO III IS IT,

4 / /, , J SA ALAA :

A fh 4

/ / 4

fhe 4 hs

Y J

h | |

j if

IIIT III

4 f SS Af

J > ow

Inventor:

Witnesses: |

Wa. J.. PEYTON,

JOUN G. TRINE

GIDEON BANTZ,

By JOHNSON, KLAUCKE & CO.,

His Attorneys.

eRe ee Nm

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 11

Gideon Bantz. Improvement in boiler furnaces for burning wet

fuel.

No. 4731. Reissued Feb. 6, 1872.

Fie. 2.

WA Wg SK

NdNdN dd’ Nd Nd’

\N \ > SS S

\N avavayAUayaqagegay : Oh)

N B ‘ B NN

< <—S SSS KANN SARA eS ~~

Fic. 3.

Inventor :

GIDEON BANTZ,

By JOHNSON, KLAUCKE & CO.,

His Attorneys.

Witnesses :

Wma. J. PEYTON,

JOHN G. TRINE.

11 Certificate of extension.

Whereas, upon the petition of Gideon Bantz, of Frederick City,

Maryland, for the extension of the patent granted to him June 22, 1858,

and reissued February 6, 1872, for improvement in boiler furnaces for

burning wet fuel, the undersigned, in accordance with the 18th section

of the act of Congress; approved on the 4th day of July, 1836, entitled

‘An act to promote the progress of the useful arts, and to repeal all

acts and parts of acts heretofore made for that purpose,” and the act

approved the 27th day of May, 1848, entitled “An act to provide addi-

CO yp RANI tf ger mR

14 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL.

of our said court to be hereunto affixed, at the clerk’s office of said

court, in Covington, this 4th day of May, A. D. 1876, and in the one

hundredth year of our Independence.

Attest:

[SEAL. |] H. BOSTWICK, C. C. C. K. D.

MEMORANDUM.—The said defendants are required to enter their ap-

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

in June, 1876, otherwise the said bill will be taken pro confesso.

7 H. BOSTWICK, Clerk.

14 (‘pon which process the marshal made the following return, to

wit:

Executed May 6th, 1876, by delivering a copy of the within spa. in

chancery to each of the within-named, David Frantz, Geo. W. Frantz,

and David Frantz, jr.

ELI H. MURRAY, JU. 8S. M.,

By HENRY CRITTENDEN, D. M.

Afterwards, to wit, on July 3d, came the defendants, by J. N. Har-

lan, esq., one of their attorneys, and filed their joint answer herein,

which said answer is in the words and figures following, to wit:

Answer.

In the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky,

(at Covington.) In equity.

GIDEON BANTZ )

TS, >»

DAVID FRANTZ & Sons. §

The joint answer of David Frantz, sr., Geo. W. Frantz, and David

Frantz,*jr., composing the firm of D. Frantz & Sons, to the bill of

complaint exhibited against them by Gideon Bantz, in this court.

Filed July 3rd, 1876.

These respondents, reserving to themselves all advantages from the

many defects of the bill, for answer to the same, or to such parts thereof

as they are advised they should make answer to, say;

It is not true, as in the bill alleged, that the complainant was the

original and first inventor of the improvement claimed by him, or of

any of those parts, features, or ‘‘ claims” thereof, as are relied on by

complainant in this suit, or as have any resemblance tothe furnace used

by these respondents, and which are said to be infringed herein. The

only claim of this sort is the first claim, and this is fully anticipated by

the patent granted by the United States to Moses Thompson, on the

10th day of April, 1855, No, 12678, for improvement in furnaces for

burning wet fuel. And as far as complainant’s invertion consists

in having a deep chamber, rather than the shallow flue as described

and made by Moses Thompson, said A. M. Taylor & Co., or H. W.

Taylor & Co., predecessors of these respondents in the tannery busi-

ness at the present place, made and publicly used such a deep chamber

as early as 1857, by digging out the earth in the flue of the patent fur-

nace put up for them by Moses Thompson’s agent. As to the use of

side doors, it will be shown hereafter that they cannot be used for the

CO Nt Rails He se me: masa re eee

amenemenee NED cemmen amass

owen ane. nppeete a Cora em §.« opel! es

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 15

purpose stated in the patent; but for the purpose of taking out ashes,

they were in the public use long before complainant’s pretended

15 invention, among others in the boiler furnace heated with coal

which was in use by the predecessors of these respondents at

their tannery in Louisville, long before 1855, and in the Thompson fur-

nace which they put up, as hereinafter stated.

A certified copy of the latter patent is filed herewith, marked Exhibit

A A.

These respondents further say that the very furnace from the use of

which they are sought to be enjoined herein was built for them lately,

only in place of older ones worn out, from time to time; one of which

Moses Thompson had built at their tannery in the city of Louisville

(then belonging to the respondent David Frantz, sr., and one A. M. Tay-

lor, partuers, as A. M. Taylor & Co.), long before the grant or issual of

the plaintiffs original patent.

These respondents admit the facts about the issual and surrender of

complainant’s original patent, and the issual of the new patent in lieu

thereof as set forth in the bill, and they file herewith as Exhibit B B, a

certitied copy of the original patent to Gideon Bantz of June 22nd, 1858;

but they insist that on the face of the papers s the reissue is unlawful and

void.

Further answering, these respondents deny that the patent is useful

or profitable to complainant, otberwise than that he uses it unjustly and

corruptly, to extort the price of licenses from many tanners who find

such payment cheaper than the cost of defending unfounded suits. It is

also denied that the patent is useful. On the contrary, furnaces really

constructed on complainant’s patent would be worthless—none is actu-

ally anywhere constructed in accordance with his specifications, not even

by those who have paid him for a license.

These respondents admit the filing of a suit by the complainant against

Elsas & Pritz, in the circuit court of the southern district of Ohio, and

the proceedings therein, as in the bill of complaint set forth; but they

object to the partial record exhibited with the bill being read or consid-

ered. Aid they deny that the defendants in that snit were agsisted by —

other tanners in making their defense or in paying the expense thereof ;

but on the contrary, for the want of such assistance they neglected and

abandoned the defense of the case, and its merits never came fully and

fairly before the circuit court for the southern district of Ohio. For this

reason of want of assistance, Elsas & Pritz spent only a small sum in

the defense, wholly: disproportionate to the work in such a case, and

took no pains in the preparation of theirdefense. Although they set up

the want of novelty of complainant’s patent in their answer, they failed

to give the name and residence of Jacob Magly, who had made, and of

Herman Rasche, who bad been using, a similar furnace in 1857; and the

evidence to that effect was afterwards ruled out on that ground on com-

plainant’s demand. And though the reissue might be unlawful on the

face of the claims in it and in the original patent, and though this point

was raised by defendant’s counsel in argument, the court could not pass

upon it for want of an allegation to that effect in the answer. All this

appears from the printed brief of complainant, filed in the cause. The

counsel for defendant also failed to take proof on the question of in-

fringement, but bound himself by admissions to the plaintiff’s proof;

though be could easily bave proved that the furnace of Elsas & Pritz

did not in any way infringe on claim 3 of complainant’s reissue.

These respondents are informed and believe, and so state, that the de-

cree in the cause of Gideon Bantz against Elsas & Pritz was really

ull

md R a “

phe a et NN I OL LE ALLL LOL LIE, pee DEAE ROMER MEI I

ga ag rs ARIS oN cen dane ae ee

maces

16 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL.

agreed upon between the parties ; and the defense, in fact, abandoned

before the decisions of the court were delivered.

Further answering, these respondents deny that all of the firms of

tanners named in the bill of complaint paid the complainant for licenses,

but admitting that some of them did, they say that the complainant

pressed his license upon others for nothing, merely to prevent any liti-

gation in earnest, by which the validity or extent of his patent might

be endangered. Those of the firms of tanners who did »eccept and pay

for licenses did so under the advice of counsel, who told them that the

complainant had no right or case against them, but that it would be

cheaper for them to compromise with him in that way than to carry on

even a successful litigation with him.

16 for all of which reasons these respondents insist that the de-

cree in the case of Bantz vs. Elsas & Pritz, and the submission

of some other tanners in Cincinnati and its neighborhood, should not be

drawn into precedent againstthem, nor should it bedecmed tostrengthen

the complainant’s right to a provisional injunction.

They insist and aver that the patent sued upon is, both for want of

“ novelty and usefulness, as shown in this answer, null and void.

They deny that they ever made, constructed, or used the complain-

ants’ pretended inventions, or thing described ‘in his patents; or that

they ever made, used, or constructed boiler furnaves made according to

the same; and they deny that they threaten to make the aforesaid boiler

furnaces in large quantities, or in anv other quantities, or even to make

any boiler furnaces of any kind. These respondents are tanners, not

furnace builders, and, having one furnace already, do not stand in need

of another.

They file with this answer correct drawings, plans, side elevations,

and sections of their furnace and boiler, prepared by an expert archi-

tect and engineer, and, not knowing the details of the build of Elsas &

Pritz’s furnace, they neither deny nor admit the plaintiff’s allegation,

that their (respondents’) farnace is substantially like that of Elsas &

Pritz. The drawing thus filed is made an exhibit hereto, and marked

BB.

injury, but on the contrary aver that by ieasen of the want of the use-

fulness of his patent he could not have suffered any injury at all, there

being many kinds of unpatented furnaces in use as good as, or much

better than, that supposed to be covered by complainant’s patent.

These respondents deny that they now use, or ever did use a furnace

like that of plaintiff’s patent, or that they have or could have realized

any profits from the same. They admit that the plaintiff notified them

of the pretended infringement, and that they disregarded such notice

as wholly impertinent.

And, having fully answered, they pray to be hence dismissed with

their tull costs, already in this behalf most wrongfully sustained.

) D. FRANTZ, Sr.

D. FRANTZ, JR.

GEO. W. FRANTZ.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

State of Kentucky, to wit:

David Frantz, sr., on his oath, says that the statements of the above

answer, as far as they are made on his own knowledge respectively, are

true, and as far as they are made on the information of others, he be-

lieves them to be true.

DAVID FRANTZ, Sr.

They deny that the complainant has, by all this, suffered any loss or.

aint tie in

ee Eee

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. : 17

Subscribed and sworn to befure me by D. Frantz, sr., this 23rd day

of June, 1876,

JAMES A. BEATTIE,

Com. U.S. Cir. Court, Dist. of Ky.

Geo. W. Frantz and David Frantz, jr., on their oath, say that the

statements of the above answer, as far as they are made on their own

knowledge respectively, are true, and as far as they are made on the in-

formation of others, they believe them to be true.

GEO. W. FRANTZ.

D. FRANTZ, JR.

Subscribed and sworn to before me by Geo. W. Frantz and D. Frantz,

jr., this 26th day of June, 1876.

JAMES A. BEATTIE,

Com. U.S. Cir. Court, Dist. of Ky.

17 And on Saturday, August 19th, A. D. 1876, the following order

was entered in the clerk’s office

—_ BANTZ d

D. Susuen ET AL. \

This day came the defendants, by John M. Harlan and Lewis N.

Dembitz, esq’r’s, their attorneys, and filed demand, in accordance with

rule 66 in equity, a dismissal of the above cause.

And on Monday, August 2lst, 1876, the following order was made,

Viz:

GIDEON BANTZ !

vs.

D. FRANTZ ET AL. \

This day came the complainant, by Messrs. Hatch & Parkinson, his

solicitors, and lodged in the clerk’s office his replication herein.

And on Friday, January 26th, A. D. 1877, the following order was

made, viz:

GIDEON BANTZ

v8.

DAVID FRANTZ ET AL.

Upon motion of the complainant it is ordered that the replication in

the above-entitled cause, lodged with the clerk August 21st, 1876,

18 be filed nunc pro tune as of the date at which it was due.

We consent to the above. : |

! HATCH & PARKINSON,

Sols for Complainants.

LEWIS DEMBITZ,

Sol. for Defendants.

REC. 330—2

18 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL.

The replication above referred to is in the words and figures following,

to wit: |

Replication.

Circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky (at Cov-

ington). In equity.

GIDEON BANTZ }

ve. > No. 793.

DAVID FRANTZ ET AL.

The replication of the above-named complainant to the answer of the

above-named defendants.

This repliant saviug and reserving to himself, now and at all times

hereafter, all and all manner of benefit and advantage of exception which

may be had or taken to the manifold insufticiencies of said answer, for

replication thereunto, says that be will aver, maintain, and prove his

bill of complaint to be true, certain, and sufficient in law to be answered

unto; and that the said answer of the said defendants is uncertain, un-

true, and insufticient to be replied unto by this repliant; without this,

that any other matter or thing whatsoever in the said answer contained,

material or effectual in the law to be replied unto and not herein and

hereby well and sufficiently replied unto, confessed and avoided, trav-

ersed or denied, is trne; all which matters and things this repliant is

and will be ready to aver, maintain, and prove as this honorable court

shall direet, and humbly prays as in and by his said bill he has already

prayed.

HATCH & PARKINSON,

Solicitors for Complainant.

Notice to take testimony orally.

Circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky. In

equity. :

GIDEON BANTZ }

vs, > No. 793.

DAVID FRANTZ ET AL. 4

The respondents will take notice that the complainant desires that

all the testimony in the above named cause shall be taken orally, under

the 67th rule in equity, as amended.

HATCH & PARKINSON,

Solicitors for Complainant.

Service acknowledged this Jan. 18th, 1877.

LEWIS N. DEMBITZ,

Solicitor for Defendants.

19 And at a term of our said court, held for its December term,

A. D. 1876, and on a day of said term continued and held, to

wit, on January 26th, 1577, the following order was made, viz:

——

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 19

GIDEON BANTZ

U8.

DAVID FRANTZ ET AL.

Upon motion of the complainant it is ordered that the time for taking

testimony be extended to the third Monday in April. The witnesses, if

examined at Cincinnati or Louisville, may be examined orally; if at

other places, by written interrogatories and cross-interrogatories.

Here follows copy of stipulation between parties.

Stipulation.

Circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky. In

equity.

GIDEON BANTZ )

U8.

DAVID FRANTZ ET ax. J

It is stipulated and agreed by and between the parties to the cause

above named, that any notary public selected by either party may act

as examiper under the 67th rule in equity,

HATCH & PARKINSON,

Solicitors for Complainant.

LEWIS N. DEMBITZ,

Solicitor for Defendants.

Here follows copy of depositions of parties.

20 Circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky.

In equity.

GIDEON BANTZ }

vs. ‘

DAVID FRANTZ ET AL. S

The respondents will take notice that the complainant will examine

witnesses in the above named cause, under the 67th rule in equity as

amended, before competent authority, examiner, at the office ot Hatch

& Parkinson, No. 8 West 3rd street, Cincinnati, Ohio, on Thursday, the

14th day of September, 1876, beginning said examination at 9 o’clock a.

m. of said day, and continuing from day to day until completed.

HATCH & PARKINSON,

Solicitors for Compl't.

21 Depositions.

Circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky (at Cov-

ington). In equity.

GIDEON BANTZ, COMPLAINANT, }

: 793

vs. No. 793. ra

D. FRANTZ ET AL., DEFENDANTS. 9

Exdmination of witnesess on behalf of the complainant under the 67th

rule in equity. as amended, pursuant to the annexed notice.

20 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL.

Present, Mr. R. H. Parkinson, for the complainant; and for

the defendants. |

By request of parties, it is ordered that these depositions be taken by

question and answer.

Mr. JEREMIAH F. TwouiG, of Cincinnati, Obio, a witness produced

on behalf of the complainant, being first duly sworn, deposeth and saith,

in answer to interrogatories propounded to him by R. H. Parkinson,

Esq., of counsel for the complainant, as follows:

Question 1. State your name, age, residence, and occupation.

Answer 1. My name is Jeremiah FI. Twobig; I am nineteen years

old; Llive in Cincinnati, and I am a clerk. |

(). 2. State whether at any time during the past year you have been

in the tannery of D. Frantz & Sons, at Louisville, Kentucky, and, if so,

whether you observed the furnace used by them in said tannery.

A. 2. I wasin that tannery on the 27th day of last January, and have

observed the furnace used by them, and did so then; this furnace was

being used at the time I was there.

(). 3. Please describe fully the construction and operation of said

furnace.

A. 3. The furnace was a double furnace, having two boilers, which

were not located directly over the fire chamber, but were in front of the

furnace. The fire chambers had six holes to admit the wet tan, which

was hauled over and dumped into them on top of the five chambers,

and these holes were allon top of thechamber. ‘The flames passed from

the fire chamber up through a throat-like aperture which was inclined,

and thence under the boilers, and then the smoke came through the

boilers again in a flue, and then passed up into the stack at the front of

the furnace. The boilers rested on the rear wall of the furnace, I think.

There were four holes right under the boiler, opening on the outside of

the furnace and on each side of the furnace, which I was told by a work-

man were for the purpose of cleaning out the soot, and that they didn’t

use them for any other purpose but for that. There were four holes

right under the grate bars, or at the side of the fire chamber, which were

open from the outside and were used for the purpose of creating a draft

and cleaning out the ashes, etc., that settled there. There was also a

door at the back end of the furnace, from which a person could see the

entire length of the flue under the boilers. Wet tan was the only fuel

used while I was there; I saw no other fuel about the place, and the

fireman said they only used other fuel when they went to light the fire

and this they did only once a week. I madea sketch of this furnace as

I saw it, and that sketch is on file in this case with my original affidavit.

I now attach a copy of that sketch, also made by me, and make it a

part of this my deposition, and mark it Exhibit Franz Furnace. I

would also say that the walls of the furnace were quite thick, so far as

I could see by looking up through the open doors at the mouth of the

fire chamber, and there was a wall, as I was told by a workman, which

divided the fire chamber into two compartments, but I couldn’t see that

clearly, as the furnace was in full blast.

@. 4. Describe more particularly the location of the combustion cham-

ber with reference to the boiler?

23 A. 4, Well, the combustion chamber was right back of the fire

chamber, and directly under the front end of the boiler, and com-

municated directly with the fire chamber, by means of an aperture

for that purpose. The fire chamber was built some six feet «down

ina pit cut into the ground, and on the level of the ground above it

-y 4.

et Eg AE EE, EW Nt ay ME

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 21

were the holes where the wet tan was put in, and the boilers were not over

the fire chamber but were to the back of it, and the front end of the

boiler was about over the rear wall of the fire chamber, and the boilers

were almost on the level of the ground, but a little raised from the

ground so as to be on the bottom a little above the level of the tops of

the holes for feeding the fire with wet tan. This is as I remember it.

Q@. 5. Please state how correctly the drawing to which you have re-

ferred represents the furnace of D. Frantz & Sons, and state particularly

what is represented by the parts marked with letters of the alphabet.

Exhibit Frantz Furnace.

LP LLL LLL LOL LLL LOL LL LLL LLL, ELLE AL A Breet > 7 - a

4 Antindas Kt

y ee ete . Z , 4 ¥ : i

; 4p < - ~ beenaene PO He ON HE me Sen eee ett at te te oe eth i

t j | a 4 SN aN ~ <

. 7 .

' -_ oe ce ee

IOITID TT VITITID PO PPVVTTIT IV POVTVIT IP

Fig. z.

Sketch of D. Frantz & Sons’ Furnace, Lonisville, Ky.

23 A. 5. The drawing represents the furnace of D. Frantz & Sons

correctly, with the slight exeeption, which I now notice, that I

have made: in figure one the boilers as if they were on a level with the

gvround surrounding the pit in which the fire chamber is sunk. This

was an oversight of mine. As I have said, the boilers should be repre-

sented as raised above the surface of the ground a little, say about four

or five inches.

In figure one, B, B represent the ash pits, A, A represent the fire

chamber, d, d represent the hole through which the tan is put into

the fire, and H, H, are the boilers. This is an end sectional view of the

furnace.

Figure two is a longitudinal section of the same. In it, d,d,d are

the holes into which the tan is put, ) is a door leading directly to the

fire chambers, and a little above the level of the grate, for the purpose

of starting the fire. I should say,e¢ is the combustion chamber and

22 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL.

also the induction throat through which the fire passes up to the flue

under the boilers; 4 is a door on the side of the furnace, for the pur-

pose of admitting air or cleaning out the soot which accumulates there,

and the other door: 8, h, h, are doors for same purpose; H, H shows the

boiler, and B shows the grate.

JEREMIAH F. TWOHIG.

Deposition of Frank Millicard.

[examination in chief:

Also, at the same time and place came one FRANK MILLWARD, who

was first duly sworn and examined for the complainant by Mr. hk. H.

PARKINSON, the attorney for complainant, and, being thus examined,

the said Frank Millward deposes and testifies as follows, in the words

and figures following, viz:

(). 1. What is your name, age, place of residence, and occupation ?

A. 1. My name is Frank Millward ; I am forty-two years of age; I

live in Ludlow, Kentucky; and I am ’ engaged professionally in Cincin-

nati, Ohio, as a solicitor of patents and mechanical engineer.

(). 2. Please state for how long and to what extent you have been

engaged in mechanical pursuits, and whether or not you have ever had

any practical experience in the construction of heating furnaces.

A. 2. Since the year 1850 I have been wholly engaged in mechanical

occupations, and in the study and practice of mechanical engineering,

and I have been engaged in various large manufactories of machinery

in various parts of the United States as master mechanic, draughts-

man, etc. During this time I have frequently made plans for the con-

struction of, and have superintended the erection of, steam-boiler fur-

naces and other heating apparatus.

(). 3. Have you examined the reissued letters patent, No. 4731,

granted to Gideon Bantz, of Frederick, Maryland, on February 6th,

1872, for an improvement in boiler furnaces for burning wet fuel, and

do you understand the invention there described and specified ? -

A. 3. I have carefully examined the reissued letters patent, No.

4731, granted to Gideon Bantz, February 6th, 1872, for an improve-

ment in boiler furnaces for burning wet fuel, and believe I understand

thoroughly the construction and operation of the apparatas shown

therein.

(). 4. Please examine the Exhibit “ Frantz Furnace,” attached to the

deposition of Je emiah F. Twohig, berein, and the explanation of the

same given in the said deposition, and state how the same compares

with, or differs from, the invention set forth, described, and specified in

the specifications and drawings of the reissued patent 4731, granted

to Gideon Bantz, referred to in your last answer, and specified in the 1st

and drd claims thereof. Give your reasons fally.

A, 4. I have examined the said exhibit, and the drawings of it, and

the deposition of Jeremiah EF. Twohig, and I believe I understand the

boiler furnace therein shown and described. In order that my compar-

ison may be understood, I will state what I understand to be the essen-

tial construction of the improvement specified in the Bantz reissue,

with which the Frantz furnace has any relation so far as shown by the

exhibit and deposition of Mr. Twohig. The first claim of the reissued

letters patent, No. 4731, I find to be as follows:

24 ‘In a furnace burning wet fuels, having two or more single

fire chambers, not arranged under the boilers, the combustion-

chamber or reservoir C, arranged above the top of said fire-chamber

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 23

and located directly under the front end of the boiler, essentially as de-

scribed.” This part of the invention is set forth as important in the

following language of the patent: “ The effect of the principal part of my

invention, which consists in the location and arrangement of the reser-

voir C, with respect to the boiler and fire-chamber, is that the products

of combustion and heat are caused to leave the fire-chambers through

the throat E E, in immediate and direct contact with the boiler, and the

said chamber and reservoir are constantly caused to be heated in an

intense degree and to give out that intense heat upon the boiler without

passing through an intermediate flue, while at the same time the boiler

occupies no space within or above the fire chambers.

‘A very important feature of this furnace is the location of the com-

bustion-reservoir above the fire chambers, as thereby the products of

combustion are not forced out of a natural draft, but merely follow their

natural tendency to rise in said reservoir.” I find that the furnace

shown and described in the exhibit * Frantz furnace” and Mr. Twohig’s

deposition is one having two fire-chambers, constructed to burn wet

fuel, the fire-chambera not being arranged under the boiler, and a com-

bustion-chamber or reservoir, which is arranged above the top of said

fire chambers and located directly under the front end of said boiler,

and substantially as shown and described in the Bantz reissue patent,

No. 4731. The Frantz furnace has all the advantages and the same

method of operation which is peculiar to the Bantz furnace, as contem-

plated in the Bantz patent. I am of the opinion, therefore, that the

Frantz furnace embraces the particular improvement specified in the

- first claim of the Bantz reissue No. 4731.

And for the reason that the Frantz furnace has a door opening into

the combustion-reservoir, to which I have just referred, this door sery-

ing to admit any desired quantity of atmospheric air to this reservoir or

chamber, as is required by the different circumstances, I am of the

opinion that this furnace also embraces the particalar improvement

specified in the 3rd claim of the letters patent No. 4731, which reads as

follows :

— 3, In combination with the combustion-chamber or reservoir C, ar-

ranged and located as described, I claim the side door or doors h for the

admission of atmospheric air for the purpose described.”

Q. 5. Were you examined as a witness in the suit of this complainant

against Jacob Elsas and Samuel Pritz, tried and adjudicated in the U.

S. circuit court in and for the southern district of Ohio, at the June

term, 1874, and did you examine in that behalf the furnace of those de-

fendants, for the use of which that suit was brought ?

A. 5. I was examined as a witness in that case, and did examine the

furnace referred to.

(). 6. Please state how that furnace compared in respect to the claims

one and three of the patent bere sued upon with the furnace of D.

Frantz & Sons, to which you have referred above.

A. 6. So far as relates to the comparison between the Frantz furnace

and the Elsas & Pritz furnace and the first and third claims of the

Bantz reissue there is no substantial difference between the Frantz fur-

nace and the Elsas & Pritz. They both have the combustion-chamber

located with reference to the fire-cchamber, and the end of the boiler

exactly as defined in the Bantz reissue, and they both have the side

doors opening into the combustion-chamber exactly as and for the pur-

pose provided in the Bantz reissue, and there is no difference between

them in thisrespect. The only difference between the Frantz and Elsas

& Pritz furnaces, and that is not an essential one, obviously, so far as

24 _ BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL.

this comparison is concerned, is that in that in the Elsas & Pritz the heat

and smoke passed up the chimney at the rear of the boiler, while in the

Frantz furnace the heat and smoke returns through a flue in the boilers

to the front part of the furnace, and thence up the stack.

FRANK MILLWARD.

25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Hamilton County, State of Ohio, ss:

I, Charles B. Willey, a notary public in and for State and county

atoresaid, do certify that the above and foregoing depositions of Jere-

miah H. Twohig and Frank Millward were taken before me at the office

of Hateh & Parkinson, attorneys at law, No. 8 west 3d street, Cincin-

nati, county and State aforesaid, on the 14th day of September, 1876,

in accordance with the notice hereto annexed; that said witnesses were

each first sworn by me that the evidence they should give in the above

named action should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

truth, before giving their testimony; that the testimony of each of said

witnesses was written by me, and read to and subscribed by him in my

presence.

In testimony whereof I have this day and year aforesaid set hereunto

my hand and official seal.

(SEAL, | CHARLES Bb. WILLEY,

Not. Pub. Ham. Co.

96 Cross examination.

Also, on September 25, 1876, at the same place, by consent of counsel,

Mr. FRANK MILLWARD, witness for complainant, is recalled for cross-

examination.

Present, Mr. Parkinson, for complainant, and Mr. Dembitz, for re-

spondents, and any further certificate than the foregoing is now waived.

HATCH & PARKINSON,

For Complainant.

LEWIS N. DEMBITZ,

For Defendants.

Cross-examined by L. N. DEMBITZ, counsel for defendants:

X Question 1. Look at the drawing now here shown you on tinted

paper and colored, and state whether or not it is, to the best of your

recollection, a correct drawing of Frantz & Son’s furnace.

Answer 1. I have never seen the Frantz furnace, and therefore can-

not say.

X Q. 2. Is your judgment of the Frantz furnace made up entirely from

looking at Mr. Twohig’s drawing ?

A. 2. Not altogether. It is made up from the drawing and the depo-

sition attached thereto, or connected therewith.

X Q. 3. Do you recollect what Mr. Twohig says of the side doors

causing a draft? If so, state in what manner such draft, according to

your knowledge of physics, can be regulated by such doors, and what

would be the effect of closing and what of opening them.

A. 3. I don’t recollect the exact language as to this point.

X Q. 4. According to what you recollect of those side doors please

describe their effect.

A. 4. If the question refers to the side door which admits air into the

combustion chamber I say the effect of such door is that the draft can

be regulated thereby and air admitted as required.

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 25

X Q. 5. What would be the effect of admitting air by those side doors

upon the fire?

A. 5. Does the word fire refer to the fuel or what?

X Q. 6. The blaze.

A. 6. That depends upon the condition or intensity of the flame.

X Q. 7. Would the effect be generally to heighten the draft and make

the blaze more violent, or the contrary ?

A. 7. If the air is admitted as the condition of the gases of the com-

bustion chamber require the tendency would be to increase combustion,

and consequently increase the draft as it is called.

X Q. 8 Are you acquainted with Thompson’s patent on wet-fuel

furnaces ? :

A. 3. No, sir. '

X Q. 9. Is vot the use of side doors in the rear of furnaces of all kinds

very old ?

A. 9. Not that I know of. It is common to use front doors for the

admission of fuel, &ce.

X Q. 10. How long have you been acquainted with the construction

of furnaces of various kinds?

A. 10. Since I was fifteen years old.

X (. 11. Had none ot those furnaces any side doors until you saw

those of Bantz’s patent, or those for wet fuels, which seem to infringe on

this patent?

4 | A. 11. I never recollect seeing a steam boiler furnace so made

so that the fire or fuel chambers were in advance of the front end

of the boiler, both five chambers communicating with a combustion

chamber or reservoir located under the front end of said boiler, before

I saw the wet fuel boiler furnace of Elsas & Pritz of this city. Conse-

‘quently I say that I have never seen a boiler furnace having such con-

struction with a side door or otherwise, before that time. It has been

common of late to make bridge walls of ordinary steam boilers hollow,

and to admit into the hollow chambers therein atmospheric air, some of

which have been controlled by registers or valves. I do not, however,

know the relative dates.

X Q.12. When you say that you are not acquainted with Thomp-

son’s patent, do you mean to say that you have never heard about it

at all?

A. 12. I have heard of it for the first time this morning.

X Q. 15. Examine the drawing now shown you and say in what re-

spects, if any, it differs from the drawing and description given by

Twohig.

26 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL.

Respondient’s Exhibit A A.—Chas. B. Wilby, notary.

Diagram referred to in deposition of D. Frantz, jr., Oct. 23, 1876.

CHAS. A. GRAHAM, Notary.

—s

a! 2 |

S| 2

= |}

stoi orm Sy

, x

at an ioe Stee By o |}

OE cece fF ere ene - ty Z|

i | BOILER 4 | j

‘ i } } ; =

| S cane non

sig 4

SS Ss | ee mH = 5 risen = =~ i ti

MUD DRAIN, pie Hh pie bon ti f

fue ei beg © ry 3 ia

: of _ ES <i e : ~ |

" -

oe | Oe

t 7 * i

+ +— aE. Gee

- 'LERs 4s

y ro pmo ~. * ga we

‘ele (OO) j Fe Cy } \

* 7 _

a * ~ SSS_——y—EE

‘ nk 6 ce ee = bend »

hl on ft “OP sai

SECTION THROUGH c¢-o j —_— —_ » }

, GRATE BOATE y

+ = re

} 4

on LOWER, | FLOOR :

SECTION THROUGNM E-F.

Q a L.

oo _ Oe — - 2 i

—p

H aR: H id Be

» BONER | i k F " — ed

—— eerie focal do | eT 3 j)SMOKE FWE — 2B

, b; 2

| ' | GOWER {) | E 7 and pa —9

ee eee seme aie c 3 acon lt | Lomanb bao!

ree | | eee eee Se Loh ae :

C) od

PLAN OF UPPER FLOOP

f ,

ee eee el TTT errs svernetemeettrerrecetarrertorer ile ' —s

| fre 'S Eee fae Ween ila ‘a f »* yt if ia iT erie. :

4 Arwe uyits eNO! ula iad

vere

A ay be Re

* 7 is

‘ 4 « ;

t | Be i to a cia

i ! a, =O

Zs aie 3:

Lr ue ot tee eat Se

HW I

; +

» | s ;

i ‘ ED Gee vs + 7 ‘ he

, ;

i y ; oo i “ : ‘ aimee

ec —_ oe eee — Hig bah eu f 4 t

i TS Beata! PU ; pt :

a _ - es wee ety Bi it an a PRR CTA SEE a PT

te yy

a y

—

PLAN OF WER FLOOR —

C. G. ROSENPLANTER,

Resident & Civil Engineer.

LOUISVILLE, Ky.

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 27

23 - (Question objected to by Mr. Parkinson, as the drawing re-

ferred to is not in evidence. Counsel for respondents now offers

in evidence the drawing referred to by him in cross question 13, and

makes it part hereof, and mark’ it Respondents’ Exhibit A A.—Chas.

L. Wilby, notary.)

A. 13. So far as it relates to the questions arising in this controversy

it yg in no material respect.

X @. 14. Do you consider side doors at the rear of the furnace for the

purpose of taking out ashes and mud as an infringement of the Bantz

patent ?

A. 14. No. |

X Q@.15. Are you well acquainted with tannery and sugar furnaces?

A.15. No, sir.

X Q. 16. Have you ever seen any wet fuel furnace, except or betore

you saw that of Elsas & Pritz?

A. 16. 1 think not.

X. Q.17. Have you ever studied up the progress of the art of making

such furnaces? Do you know the various kinds of them patented and

unpatented that are in use?

A.17. I have not become familiar with the state of the art fully as

to furnaces devoted to the burning of wet fuels, and I am not familiar

with all the patented improvements in that line, or indeed with any ex-

cept with the Bantz patent, and I have not seen any in use except the

one at Elsas & Pritz’s. With the construction and operation of that I

am familiar.

FRANK MILLWARD.

. For certificate see agreement preceeding.—NOTARY.

DEFENDANTS’ TESTIMONY.

The deposition of David Frantz, jr., F. Kannel and L. Pratt, taken on

the 23rd day of October, 1876, at the office of Graham & Hardacre, at

Louisville, county of Jefferson, and State of Kentucky, to be read as

evidence on bebalf of the respondents, in an action between Gideon

Bantz, plaintiff, and David Frantz & Sons, defendants, now pending

in the U.S. cireuit court, Kentucky district, both parties, by attor-

neys, being present.

Deposition of David Frantz.

DAVID FRANTZ, jr., being duly sworn and examined by Mr. Dembitz,

as attorney for the respondents, deposed as follows:

Question1. Are you one of the defendants in this case ?

Answer 1. Yes, sir.

Q.2. Llow old are you ?

A. 2, I am 414 years old.

().3. How long have you been engaged in the trade of ‘iieciiat ’

A.3. All my life—ever since I have been able to do anything.

@. 4. How long has your firm, or the firms of which it is a successor,

been keeping the tannery in which you now are?

A. 4, Since May, 1848.

@.5. When did you first use in your tannery a furnace for wet fuel ?

A.5. We have been burning wet fuel in an ordinary coal furnace

ever since I can remember, but as a regular tan burner since Ovtober,

1856.

28 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL.

().6. Who put the tan burner up for you ?

A. 6. Well, there was a man by the name of Clark, J. C. or J. L., an

agent for Moses Thompson. It was put up in 1856.

(). 7. Is that the same Moses Thompson who claimed a patent on the

furnace?

A.7. It is the same one. He claimed a patent at that time.

Q.8. Did your firm pay him anything for the patent ?

29 A. 8. We bought the right to use that furnace for all time to

come.

©. 9. For how much ?

A. 9. 1 don’t know whether it was $150 or $259. I think it was $250.

(). 10. What was the style of the firm at that time?

A. 10. The style of that firm at that time was A. M. Taylor & Co.

(). 11. Was your father the company ?

A. ti. See, air.

(). 12. What are the changes through which the firm has been since ?

A. 12. There have been two changes since, from A. M. Taylor & Co.,

to H. W. Taylor & Co., and then to D. Frantz & Son.

). 13. What became of the Thompson furnace which you put up in

)

LSo6 2 .

A. 15. That furnace, we run it as long as it lasted, making a change,

we remoddled it next spring—1857, and when it was burned out we tore

it down and used an ordinary coal furnace again for afew years. Then

we put up one something similar to it, and we used that until we put up

the present furnace two years ago.

(). 14. What was the cause of your putting up the present furnace in

place of those you had before ?

A. 14. The furnace that we had before was burnt out, and did not

answer the purpose altogether. We put up this furnace, thinking to im-

prove onthe matter, which we did.

(). 15. Look at Mr. Rosenplanter’s drawing, and state whether or not

the same is in all particulars a correct drawing of your furnace.

A. 15, That plan is a correct drawing of our present furnace.

(). 16. Look particularly at the two square doors and the round-door

marked * drum.”

A. 16. The “mud drum” is notadoor. It is all closed up. The sur-

roundings of the **mud drum” is al! walled up. That is the head of

the drum.

(). 17. State about the two oblong doors S' and S'—what they are used

for.

A. 17. They are used for taking out ashes, cleaning out principally.

The same as in every ordinary coal furnace. It is nothing more than

what has been in existence for the last 50 years, or since a boiler has

been a boiler. |

(). 18. What is the effect upon the fire when those doors are open ?

A. 18. Very injurious. They check the draft—do more injury than

they do good, but they are bound to be there to clean out. If it was

not for that we would not have them there at all.

(). 19. Are there similar doors on the opposite side of the furnace, or

are they on both sides ?

A. 19. They are on the other side as they are here.

(). 20. Are they too near the wall on the other side to be used ?

A. 20. No, sir.

(). 21. Look at the opening which I have marked O, and state bow

wide and high it is?

A. 21. That is about five feet at the bottom in width, and then it is

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 29

arched over. The top of the arch is about three feet high in the center.

It is oval ontop. It is the full size of the arch, with the exception of a

few brick in the bottom—no flue or nothing at all there.

(Counsel for plaintiff declined to cross-examine.)

30 Deposition of Frederick Kannel,

Also the deposition of FREDERICK KANNEL, taken at the same time

and place, and in.the same behalf. The said witness being duly sworn,

deposes as follows:

Direct examination by Mr. DEMBITZ:

How old are you?

Wise

What is your trade?

. Laborer.

Have you been laboring about tanneries ?

. Yes, sir.

At what time were you engaged in the tannery now owned by

& Son.

In 1856.

What month of 1856?

. It was the last month in the year—December, 1856.

Did you go there in December or leave in December ?

. I came there in December.

. When did you leave?

A. 7. Il worked there eleven years. I cannot tell the date exactly, it

has been so long.

q. 8. What kind of furnace did you find there at that time?

A. 8. There was one furnace on one side, and one on that, and the fire

runs together in the front—there was two flues.

(). 9. What changes did you make on that furnace during the time

that you had it.

A. 9. I have to keep the ashes what comes from the fire—it settled

under the boiler, and the fire would not draw right, and I made it deeper

myself, so that the firé draws better.

(). 10. How deep was it before you took out the settled ashes, and

how deep was it afterwards?

A.10. It was about one and a half feet before I took itout. I believe it

was about three feet deep afterwards. I cannot tell exactly, but that is

what I believe.

Q. 11. Do you recollect whether the furnace was known by the name

of some patent?

A. 11. No, sir; at the time that I came the furnace was built already.

@. 12. You don’t know anything about the patent?

A. 12. No, sir.

(). 13. When you came it was built already ?

A. 13. Yes, sir.

(). 14. Was there any side doors in the back chamber?

A. 14. Yes, sir.

@.15. How many?

A. 15. There was one side door; we opened that to stop the fire and

cool off the boiler; another on that side so as to put the ashes out.

There was another door, and every two weeks we walled itup. We

would get the ashes out and then wall it up again, and then there was

the same on the other side.

Or Stim | Go 8 tO NS

AI}

FLEE NN AD OE a: NR AN 8 IE a RCS

nsdhenea tienen. bieet areal aie avd ahem ease a, |

pee

pe nS

30 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL.

(). 16. One of the side doors you opened when you wanted to cool t! e

fire off?

A. 16. Yes, sir.

Cross-examination by Mr. HATCH:

X @. 1. Are you still at work for Mr. Frantz?

A. 1. No, sir.

X Q. 2 2. How long since you worked for Mr. Frantz ?

A. 2. Eleven years since 1856, and then LI left.

X Q. 3. You have not been to work for him since then—since 1867.

A. 3. Yes, sir, about three months.

X Q. 4. Recently ?

A. 4. I worked on the beam inside of the yard about a year ago.

X @). 5. Did you work about the furnace at all during the last time

that you were in his employ ?

A. 5. The first time that 1 worked for Mr. Frantz I worked all the time

on the furnace. The last time I didn’t work on it at all.

3 Deposition of Lawrence Pratt.

Also the deposition of LAWRENCE PRATT, taken at the same time and

place and in the same behalf. The said witness being duly sworn and

examined by Mr. Dembitz, deposed as follows:

(). 1. What is your age?

A. 1. Fifty-five.

(). 2. What are you by trade?

A. 2. Tanner.

®. 3. How long have you been a tanner ?

A. 3. About twenty-four years. ’

(). 1. At what time did you work at the tannery now owned by D.

rantz & Sons ?

A. 4. I believe it was in 1854 that I came there, in the fall. I cannot

tell exactly the month.

(). 5. How long did you stay there ?

A. 5. I stayed there about two years

Q. 6. In w hat month did you leave ?

A. 6. It was in the fall. I cannot tell the month. It was in 1856. in

the fall, about winter.

(). 7. While you were there, was they any new furnace put up?

A. 7. I worked on the furnace.

(). 8. On putting up the new furnace ?

A. 8. Yes, sir. Li was there when they put it up.

@. 9. Who put it up?

A. 9. It was a man of forty-five or fifty, by the name of Thompson.

- ae there the whole day, in the morning g¢ and evening.

. 10. Did you hear how Mr. Kannal described that furnace ?

rg 10. No, sir. ;

(). 11. Tell yourself what kind of a furnace it was,

A. 11. It was a furnace with two arches drawing through both arches

toone boiler. The flues went right under the boiler, and the chimney

was behind. It was no flue-boiler. There was three doors on one side,

on the right side of the boiler when you stand on the front. The first

door was to cool off, right next to the front. The other two were to

clean out the ashes.

(), 12. Say how wide and how deep that _ under the boiler was.

A. 12. 1 cannot tell that exactly. It was dug out in front, for to cool

BANTZ VS FRANTZ ET AL. 31

off where the flue goes in. We didn’t dig it out. It was dug out be-

a We didn’t put in a new boiler. We made the furnace right in

ront.

Q. 13. The three doors were under the boiler, were they ?

A. 13. Yes, sir.

Q. 14. In the flue?

A.14, Yes, sir. They were on the side.

Q. 15. Was the bottom of the flue brick, or was it the natural ground ?

A. 15. It was all built up with fire-brick ; the arch was fire-brick.

Q. 16. What was on the side opposite to the three doors? Were

there any doors on the opposite side ?

A. 16. No, sir; the boiler was walled up, and the doors were below.

The boiler was all covered up with brick.

@. 17. You spoke of three doors on one side ; were there any doors on

the opposite side ?

A. 17. The other side it was too close to the house, and we could not

make any doors.

@. 18. Was there any hole broke into the opposite side occasionally ?

A. 18. No, sir; not that I know of.

q. 19. I mean, did you take out the bricks occasionally ?

A. 19. No, sir; we never took the brick out.

(Counsel for plaintiff declined to cross-examine.)

2 STATE OF KENTUCKY,

Jefferson County:

I, Charles A. Graham, a notary public, duly commissioned and quali-

fied as such, in and for the county ot Jefferson, and State of Kentucky,

do hereby certify that, in pursuance of an agreement hereto annexed, I

was attended at my office, 105 Sth street, in the city of Louisville, and

county and State aforesaid, on the 23d day of October, A. D. 1876, and

between the hours of eight o’clock a. m. and six o’clock p.m. of said

day, by D. Frantz, jr., Frederick Kannel, and Lawrence Pratt, witnesses

of sound mind and lawful age, and that they were by me carefully ex-

amined, cautioned, and sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and

nothing but the truth, of their knowledge touching the action mentioned

in the caption. That their examination was by me reduced to writing

in their presence, read to them in my presence, both parties being pres-

ent by attorney; the signatures of said witnesses being waived per

agreement attached. I have retained said deposition’ in my possession

for the purpose of forwarding the same with my own hand to the court

for which the same were taken. I further certify that 1 am not of

counsel or attorney for either of the parties in said depositions named,

or in any way interested in the event ef the said cause named in the

caption.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal

33 this the 25rd day of October, in the year of our Lord one thou-

sand eight hundred and seventy-six.

| SEAL. | CHAS. A. GRAHAM,

Notary Public.

The agreement above referred to is in the words and figures follow-

ing, to wit. ,

lap em: «a

32 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL.

Agreement.

GIDEON BANTZ )

v8.

DAVID FRANTZ & Son. §

OcT,. 25RD, 1876.

It is hereby agreed between Hatch & Parkinson, attorneys for plaint-

iff, and L. N. Dembitz, attorney for defendant in the above entitled

cause,’now pending in the United States circuit court, Ky. district, that

the depositions of D. Frantz, jr., F. Kannel, and L. Pratt may be taken

by Charles A. Graham, notary public, waiving signature of witnesses.

HATCH & PARKINSON,

Attorneys for Plaintiff.

LEWIS N. DEMBITZ,

Attorney for Defendant.

4 Original patent of Gideon Bantz.

United States Patent Office to all persons to whom these presents

shall come, greeting :

This is to certify that the annexed is a true copy from the records of

this office of the letters patent granted Gideon Bantz, dated 22d June,

1858, No. 20616.

In testimony whereof I, Elisha Foote, Commissioner of Patents, have

caused the seal of the Patent Office to be hereunto affixed, this twenty-

third day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hun-

dred and sixty-nine, and of the Independence of the United States the

ninety-third. |

| SEAL. | ELISHA FOOTE.

The United States of America to all to whom these letters patent shall

come :

Whereas Gideon Bantz, of Frederick, Maryland, has alleged that he

has invented a new and useful improvement in furnaces for heating

steam boilers, etc., which he states has not been known or used. before

his application ; has made oath that he is a citizen of the United States,

that he does verily believe that he is the original and first inventor or

discoverer of the said improvement and the same hath not, to the best of

his knowledge and belief, been previously known or used; has paid into

the Treasury of the United States the sum of thirty dollars, and pre-

sented a petition to the Commissioner of Patents, signifying a desire of

obtaining an exclusive property in said improvement, and praying that

a patent may be granted for that purpose:

These are, therefore, to grant, according to law, to the said Gideon

Bantz, his heirs, administrators, or assigns, for the term of fourteen

years from the twenty-second day ot June, one thousand eight hundred

and fifty-eight, the full and exclusive right and liberty of making, con-

structing, using, and vending to others to be used, the said improvement,

a description whereof is given in the words of the said Gideon Bantz

in the schedule hereunto annexed, and is made part of these presents.

In testimony whereof I have caused these letiers to be made patent,

and the seal of the Patent Office has been, hereunto affixed.

Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this twenty-second

day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and

fifty-eight, and in the Independence of the United States of America,

the eighty-second.

JACOB THOMPSON,

Secretary of the Interior.

Countersigued and sealed with the seal of the Patent Office.

[L. 8. | | J. HOLT,

Commissioner of Patents.

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL.

395 Schedule.

The schedule referred to in these letters patent, and making part of the

same.

|The drawings accompanying this patent are duplicates of those at-

tached to the reissue, for which see page _.|

To ali whom it may concern:

Be it known that I, Gideon Bantz, of Frederick City, in the county

of Frederick, and State of Maryland, have invented a new and im-

proved furnace for heating steam boilers and other apparatus, and I do

hereby declare that the following is a full, clear, and exact description

of the same, reference being had to the accompanying drawings, form-

ing a part of this specification, in which—

Figure 1 is a longitudinal vertical section of the furnace, showing its

application to a steam boiler.

Figure 2 is a transverse vertical section through the fire-chambers, in

the plane indicated by the line x of tigure 1.

Figure 3 is a transverse vertical section through one of the reverberat-

ing chambers, in the plane indicated by the line y y of figure 1.

Similar letters of reference in each ot the several figures indicate cor-

responding parts.

The object of this invention is the more perfect combustion of tan,

saw-dust, bagasse, and all other kinds of retuse fuel, in a wet or dry

state, as well as of wood or coal. It is, however, with particular ad-

vantage to the burning of wet fuels.

My invention consists in the arrangement embracing, for united use,

in the manner and for the purpose hereinafter specified, the following

features, to wit:

First, two or more arched fire-chambers, with throats of less area than

their capacity ; second, an auxiliary combustion-reservoir or chamber,

with cima reversa shaped bottom, and side draft door; third, a series of

reverberatory-chambers with side draft doors and passages at top for

communication with each other; and, fourth, a diving or direct flue

leading into,the chimney or smoke-stack.

To enable others skilled in the art to make and use my invention, I

will proceed to describe its construction ond operation.

A A are two arched fire-chambers, arranged side by side, furnished

with grates, a a, having ash-pit B B provided below the said grates.

These fire-chambers are not placed below the boiler H, but directly in

front thereof, and longitudinally parallel therewith. They may, how-

ever, be placed at one side of the boiler, and at any angle to it. Each

is provided with the usual door b, but these are only used for lighting

the fires, and the ash-pits are provided with doors c to regulate the sup-

ply of air through the grates, and permit the cleaning out of ashes. On

REc, 330—3

34 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL.

the top of each chamber there are feeders dd for supplying the fuel, but

as these feeders are the same as used in other furnaces, no particular

description of them is necessary. The fire-chambers are covered with a

flat floor built over the arches, that the fuel may be wheeled to tbe feed-

ers in barrows, or brought in any other convenient manner. At the

rear end of each fire-chamber there is a throat-like aperture e communi,

cating with what I term the reservoir C, which is bailt of brick, lined

with fire-brick, under the front portion of the boiler, and which has a

concave bottom m and convex back n, which are formed by a cima re-

versa shaped plate. By having the bottom and back of the reservoir

formed by a cima reversa shaped plate, the throat e is not partially

closed up, as it would be if the plate was straight and set inclined, and,

beside this, the heated products of combustion are made to bug the bottom

of the boiler, and as the draft is at this point, the perfect combustion of

partially ignited gases is insured. The convex back of the reservoir

terminates in and serves as a bridge-wall, and has a concave top so

formed as to leave a space, o, of but three or four inches between it and

the boiler. |

36 The purpose of the reservoir will be presently explained. In

rear of the bridge-wall / there is a series of reverberatory cham-

bers D D D two, three or more, one bebind the other, the series extend-

ing nearly as far as the rear end of the boiler, and the said chambers

being severally separated by bridge walls, g g, and each chamber being

provided with one or more doors fh, in either or both sides, for the pur-

pose of admitting air in safficient quantities either to complete the com-

bustion of the gases from the fire-chambers or te check the dratt. The

reservoir is furnished with a door h', for a similar purpose as those h h

in the reverberatory chamber. At the rear of the hindmost reverbera-

tory-chamber there is a wall g', like g g, behind which there is a diving

or drop flue E leading to the chimney.

The operation of the furnace is as follows: The gaseous products of

the combustion in the fire chamber A A escape by the throats e e into

the reservoir C, where they mingle together, and the combustible por-

tion thereof becomes ignited, and where their heat acts upon the boiler,

and from whence they pass into one after another of the reverberatory-

chambers, in each of which a portion of their heat is abstracted by con-

tact with a portion of the boiler, and finally they descend the flue E to

the chimney. The effect of the principal portion of my improvement,

which consists in theemployment of the reservoir C, connected with the

tire-chambers by the throats e e, of much smaller transverse area than

the fire-chamber, is that the products of comdDustion and heat are pre-

vented leaving the fire-chamber too rapidly, and the said chambers are

consequently caused to be heated to an intense degree, and a very nearly

pertect combustion of the fuel is obtained therein, and when the gaseous

product of combustion leave the fire-chambers by the said throats and

arrive in the reservoir C, the side walls and curved bottom and baek of

which are kept at a white heat, the still combustible portion of the gas-

eous produets is ignited under the boiler. |

In the management of the furnace, care should be taken to supply the

charges of fuel to the two fire chambers alternately, as nearly as possible

at regular intervals, so that in one there may be always a bright fire.

At night or at any time when no steam is required from the boiler, or

when the generation of heat is not required, the two front feeders should

be filled up with fresh fuel, the ash-pit doors closed up, and one or more

of the doors h h opened to prevent more than a very limited supply of

oxygen to the fire-chambers, so that such a degree of heat may be kept

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 35

that on the doors h h being closed and the ash-pit doors opened to iet the

tire burn briskly, the boiler, or other apparatus, heated by the furnace

may be at once ready for operation. The doors kh hk in the reverberatory-

chambers,-besides being used to admit cool air in sufficient quantity to

prevent draft and keep the fire damped, may be also employed to admit

air in more limited quantities, to effect the combustion in the reverbera-

tory-chambers of any inflam’able gases that may pass the reservoir C.

It is proper to state that instead of two fire-chambers, three or more

may be used, the same being constructed and arranged in the same

manner, and all communicating with the same reservoir each by a con-

tracted throat, e.

What I claim, as my invention, and desire to secure by letters patent,

Dae

The arrangement of fire-chambers A A, contracted throats e e, auxil-

iary combustion-reservoir, C, provided with the cima reversa bridge plate

mn, and the door f', reverberatory-chambers D D, with doors h h, and

the diving or direct flue E, substantially as and for the purposes set

forth. :

GIDEON BANTZ.

Witnesses :

J. M. HARDING.

GEO. KAUTNER.

37 Stipulation.

Circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky. In

equity.

GIDEON BANTZ )

08. >

DAVID FRANTZ ET ax. §

It is hereby stipulated that the above may be treated as a correct copy

of the specification of which it purports to be, and may be so treated

without further proof, subject to any corrections counsel may hereafter

prove.

HATCH & PARKINSON,

Solicitors for Complainant.

LEWIS N. DEMBITZ,

Solicitor for Defendants.

Certificate.

STATE :-OF MARYLAND,

County of Frederick, to wit:

I, Henry Williams, a notary public in and for the county and State

aforesaid, duly commissioned and qualified, the commissioner named in

the annexed commission, in the case of Gideon Bantz vs. D. Frantz et

al., in the circuit court, Kentucky district, United States of America, do

hereby certify that I opened said commission on the 29th day of March,

A. D. 1877, at the house of Gideon Bantz, in Frederick, Maryland, and

then aud there appeared betore me on behalf of complainant, Gideon

Bantz, a witness of lawful age, who, being by me first duly sworn to

make true answers, did answer as follows the annexed interrogatories.

In testimony whereof 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed my

notarial seal this 29th day of March, A. D. 1377.

(SEAL, | 2 HENRY WILLIAMS,

Notary Public, Frederick, Maryland.

= RED we UR RT RATE Roa a ot STP A eth IRE PEE + Fase URNS EES a RAE HE —

36 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL.

The commission above referred to is in the words and figures fol low-

ing, to wit:

533 The United States of America to Henry Williams, esq., Freder-

ick, Maryland, greeting:

Know ye, that we, trusting to your fidelity and provident circumspec-

tion in diligently examining witnesses for complainant in a certain

matter of controversy now pending and undetermined in our circuit

court of the United States for the district of Kentucky (at Covington),

wherein Gideon Bantz is complainant and D. Frantz et al. are defend.

ants, therefore command you that at such certain days and places as

you shall appoint, that you cause said Gideon Bantz to come before vou

and him diligently examine on oath, touching the premises, and said

exalminatioa into our said court, distinctly and plainly, without delay

you shall send certified and enclosed, returning also to us this writ.

Witness, Henry Bostwick, clerk of our said court, at the Federal

court-hall, jn the city of Covington, this 24th day of March, A. D. 1877,

and of our Independence the 10I1st.

[SEAL. | ; H. BOSTWICK, Clerk.

$4 Testimony of Gideon Lantz.

Question 1. Are you the complainant in this case?

Auswer 1. I am.

(). 2. State how long you have been engaged in tanning—where you

first began. .

A. 2. About thirty-five years. In Frederick, April 1, 1542.

Q). 5. When did you first experiment in burning tan as a fuel?

A. 3. About 1546 I commenced using it; in 1845 I succeeded in using

dry tan alone to run all my machinery; August 25th, 1549, as per the

annexed exhibit, marked A, you will see my operations were a complete

success ; the newspaper was torwarded to me by some unknown person.

(). 4. When did \ou devise your plan in burning tan in a furnace sep-

arate and apart from the boiler, and applying the ‘heat through a com-

bustion chamber under the boiler

A. 4. In the year 1852 I determined to do so; had devised numerous

plans, but for the want of room near the boiler at that time prevented :

ne.

(). 5. When did you make your first complete drawing, and when did

you build your furnace as patented, and how do you fix your date ?

A. 5, June, 1854, | made my first drawing and dated it at the time;

about August, 1854, 1 built my first furnace; I fix my date by the fact

that at the same time | purchased a new boiler and put it in, as will be

seen by annexed exhibit, marked B, the freight paid upon boiler from

Baltimore, and exhibits filed in U.S. circuit court for southern district of

Ohio.

Q. 6. Did you know Moses Thompson, the patentee of the so-ealled

Thompson furnace? If so, state when and how you became acquainted

with him.

A. 6. I did kuow him; he came to my yard in the summer of 1853;

a Mr. E. 8S. Furney hough, of Richmond, Vv irginia, having speut some

time with me in obtaining information on tanning, spoke to me in ref-

erence to Mr. Thompson ; on his (Mr. Furney hough’ Ss) returning home,

Mr. Thompson came to my yard and introduced ‘himself as the friend

of Mr. Furneyhough.

Q. 7. Did you ever see a furnace constituted like the drawings of the

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 37

Thompson application, marked Exhibit B, now shown you; if so, where;

how did it work, and how do you fix the date? and state who used it,

and give names and residences of any persons who knew of its use.

A. 7. I have seen the so called Thompson furnace in Richmond, Vir-

ginia, ou S. S. Marsh’s tan yard; likewise at a barrel factory ; it failed

to get up steam to.run the engine continuously ; it was stopping and

starting all the time. It was a very crude affair—the first furnace he

ever built. From my memorandum book I fix the date between the 2d

and 8th of December, 1853. In 1854, I saw three in Frederick ; my

brother’s, Hanshew Markey’s, and my own. I saw three in Baltimore,

two complete and one being built for Denmead & Co.; the names of

the others I do not know; they were all failures. George Morkell, John

Durall, Henry Wilson, G. Ernest Bantz, and others, of Frederick, knew

of its use in Frederick.

Q. 8. How have the furnaces constructed under your patent worked ?

A. 3. All that I have constructed have generally given satisfaction ;

I guarantee them to do so, or no remuneration.

q. 9 Who made your original application ?

A. 9. 1 did, myself; and had no knowledge of the practice at the

time.

(). 10. Why did you apply for a reissue ?

A. 10. Through inadvertance and want of knowledge of the law I put

everything in one claim, whereas the separate parts that act separately

should have been claimed separately.

(). 11. State what, if any, connection the reverberatory chambers,

the diving flues, and dead chambers have with the parts claimed in the

first claim, and with each other.

40) A. 11. They each perform separate functions and have distinct

features. The dead chambers to keep the heat where it is needed

in the burning chambers, and to keep the top as cold as possible. The

reverberatory chambers to receive the heat, and by the aid of the div-

ing flue retain it under the boiler until it has lost its vitality as far as

possible. These are all separate from the first claim.

Q. 12. What is the use of the cima reversa bottom, and is it connected

to your combustion chamber ?

A. 12. It is to direct the flame or rays of heat more directly around

and against the under surtace of the boiler, and is not essential to the

combustion chambers. Each one of the various claims have separate

and distinct offices to perform outside of the burning chambers.

Q. 13. State any other matter that, to you, seems material or import-

ant to the case ?

A. 13. My furnace has the combustion chamber immediately under

the front of the boiler, where all the heat and flame meet, mingle, and

consume each other. In Thompson’s it is wasted in the long narrow

tlue.

Cross interrogatories :

X Q. 1. Was ever a furnace constructed entirely like your patent,

with cima reversa bottom, with reverberatory chambers, diving flue,

&e., ever built? If so, state where, and by whom, and for whom.

A. 1. I never saw one outside of those I have built, but I am informed

they are erected by infringers.

X Q. 2. Do you know of anybody who is using such a furnace, with

reverberatory chambers? If so, who and where?

A. 2. Not of my knowledge, but I have been told so by my experts

and others that infringers are using the whole of or parts of my claims

throughout the United States.

ES TNO ES AEA

38 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL.

X Q. 3. Did you not state, as a witness in your own behalf, in the case

of yourself against Elsas & Pritz, in the district court for the southern

district of Ohio, that you made your invention, originally, in June of

_ year 1554, and that you applied for your patent in Mare bh, 1855 !

Oo. Yes, 1 did. ea

x Q. 4. Did you not, in that case, state that you made your first farn-

ace in August, 1854, the next in 1859, and that the former of the two

Was being : altered and changed, by you, more or less until perfected ?

A. 4. About August, 1554 ; about 1859, and it was being altered and

changed by me, more or less, until perfected, and the proportions being

altered, but not the principle.

GIDEON BANTZ.

STATE OF MARYLAND;

County of Frederick, to wit:

I, Henry Williams, a notary public for the county of Frederick, State

of Maryland, do hereby certify that the foregoing deposition ‘was duly

taken, sworn to, and subscribed before me, at the time and place men-

tioned. °

Given under my hand and notarial seal, this 29th day of March, A.

D. 1377.

[SEAL.] HENRY WILLIAMS,

Notary Pub., Frederick, Maryland.

i2 Certificate.

STATE OF MARYLAND,

I’rederick County, to wit:

I, Henry Williams, a notary public in and tor the county and State

aforesaid, duly commissioned and qualified, the commissioner named in

the annexed commission in the ease of Gideon Bantz vs. D. Frantz et

al., in the circuit court for the district of Kentucky, at Covington, do

hereby certify that 1 opened said commission on the 7th day of April,

A. D. 1877, at the house of Gideou Bantz, in Frederick, Maryland, and

then and there appeared before me, on behalf of complainant, Henry

Wilson, John Duvall, and G. Earnest Bantz, witnesses of lawful age,

who, alter being by me duly sworn to make true answers, did auswer as

follows the annexed interrogatories.

[n testimony whereof [ have hereanto set my hand and afiixed my

notarial seal this (th day of April, A. D. 1877.

[SEAL. | HENRY WILLIAMS, sé

Notary Public, Frederick, Maryland.

The commission above reterred t6 is in the words and figures follow-

ing, to wit:

The United States of America to Henry Williams, Frederick, Mary land,

special commissioner, greeting :

Know ve that we, trusting to your fidelity and provident cireumspec-

tion in diligently examining witnesses, to wit, Henry Wilson, G. E.

Bantz, and Jobn Duvall, ina certain matter of controversy now depend-

ing in our circuit court ot the United States for the Kentueky district

at Covington, wherein Gideon Bantz is complainant and D. Frantz et

al. are defendants, we command you that at such certain days and

places as you shall appoint, you shall call and cause the witnesses to

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 39

come, and then diligently examine on oath touching the premises ; and

their examination into our said court, distinetly and plainly, without

delay, you shall send and certify enclosed, returning also this writ.

42 In witness whereof, Hon. Morrison R. Waite, Chief Justice

of the Supreme Court of the United States, hath caused the seal

of our said court to be hereunto attixed, this 4th day of April, 1877, and

of our Independence the 101st year.

[SEAL. | | H. BOSTWICK,

C. C. C., A. D.

43 Testimony of Henry Wilson.

q. 1. State your name, age, residence, and occupation.

z A. 1. My name is Henry Wilson. I am about seventy years old, and

my occupation a tanner,

@. 2. How long have you been engaged at your present employment

and with your present employer ?

A. 2. I have been engaged in tanning more than fifty years, and have

been thirty-four years, the 29th of next June, with Mr. Gideon Bantz.

(). 5. Did you ever know a Mr. Moses Thompson? If so, when and

where, and under what circumstances did you become acquainted with

him ? |

A. 3. I did know Moses Thompson well. When he stopped with Mr. |

Bantz he hadsome clothing to wash, and he asked me to get them washed

~ for him, and my wife washed them for bim.

Q. 4. Do you know when Mr. Bantz first began to use tan, as fuel, to

run his engine?

A. 4. In 1846, I think, he first began to use it slightly. He put up

his furnace in 1854. We were burning tan all the time from 1846, and

I helped to dry it. |

(). 5. State fully all you know about his early use of tan as fuel.

A. 5. [ have answered this in my previous answer. He was the only

one that I knew of in Frederick that was using it successfully at that

time.

Q. 6. Do you know whether Mr. Bantz ever made a model and draw-

ings of a furnace for burning tan as fuel, for Mr. Thompson? If so, state

all vou know about it.

A. 6. I know that Mr. Bantz made a drawing and model for Mr.

Thompson. I know by reason of Mr. Bantz having his work-bench and

patterns in the shop at the yard where he worked.

(). 7. Did you ever see a farnace built in accordance with Mr. Thomp-

son's plan? If so, when, where, and who built it?

A. 7. I did see one of Mr. Thompson’s furnaces in 1854, at Mr. Bantz’s

yard; Mr. Thompson and Mr. Bantz built it under Mr. Thompson’s di-

rections. I helped to dig the foundation for it, and helped to clean the

brick of the old furnace.

(). 8. What became of the furnace? State all you know of it, also

how you fix your dates, and describe construction.

A. 8. We ran it a while and could not get along with it, and Mr. Bantz

tore it down. I fed the bark-mill at the time. Mr. George Markell

woald come in and would throw a little bark in the mill and stop the

engine, and then laugh at the engineer. I fix my date from the death

of Mr. Bantz’s father. Thompson’s furnace had four burning chambers;

the first stood against the wall of the tannery, other three to the west

i of it. The heat of Mr. Tuompson’s furnace seemed to go around the

40 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL.

“ts —- a small flue; he had nothing under the boiler that EF

snow O

(). 9. Did you ever see a furnace built according to Mr. Bantz’s plan,

that is, having two or more single fire-chambers not arranged under the

boiler, with a combustion chamber above the top of said fire chambers

and located directly under the front end of the boiler? If so, where

and when did you first see such furnace? State all you know about it.

A. 9. The only one I ever saw was ov Mr. Bantz’s yard. I helped to

tear down the Thompson furnace and helped to build Mr. Bantz’ s, and

we are using the furnace now.

(). 10. Which was the best of these two furnaces, _ to what do you

attribute the superiority of the one over the other?

A. 10. Mr. Bantz’s was the better, because it kept the machinery go-

ing all the time, and I attribute the superiority to the fact, as I said

before, the heat seemed to pass around through the narrow "flue in the

Thompson furnace, and did not strike the boiler as directly as in Mr.

Bantz’s furnace.

44 Cross-interrogatories to HENRY WILSON.

Answer each of these cross-interrogatories addressed to Gideon

Bantz.

X Q. 1. (To Gideon Bantz.) Was ever a furnace constructed entirely

like your patent, with cima reversa bottom, with reverberatory cham-

bers, diving flue, &c., ever built? If so, state where, and by whom,

and for whom.

A. 1. Not that I know of.

X Q. 2. (To Gideon Bantz.) Do you know of anybody who is using

such a furnace with reverberatory chambers? If so, who and where?

A, 2. I have heard of them, but don’t know of them.

X. Q. 5. (To Gideon Bantz.) Did you not state, as a witness in your

own behalf, in the case of yourself against Elsas & Pritz, in the district

court for the southern district of Ohio, that you made your invention

originally, in June of the year 1854, and that you applied for patent in

March, 1855? .

A. 3. This applies to Mr. Bantz, and I know nothing abont it.

X Q. 4. (To Gideon Bantz.) Did you not, in that case, state that you

made your first furnace in August, 1854, the next in 1859, and that the

former of the two was being altered and changed by you more or less

until perfected ?

A. 4. To this [ make the same reply. It applies to Mr. Bantz, and I

know nothing about it.

X Q. 5. Have you never seen side or back door for taking out ashes

in kitchen ranges, steam furnaces, or thle before you saw them in

Bautz’s wet-fuel furnace ?

A. 5. In cook stoves I have, but not in furnaces.

X Q. 6. If the cima reversa, and the reverberating chambers, and the

dead chambers are all left out, what do you then consider the charac-

teristic difference between the ’Bantz furnace from the Thompson fur-

nace ?

A. 6. The difference between the Bantz furnace and Thompson fur.

nace is, that in Mr. Thompson’s the heat passed around through a nar-

row flue to get to the boiler, and in Mr. Bantz’s it passed right under

the boiler, direct from the furnace.

X Q. 7. If, under cross-interrogatory 6, you have shown the difference, |

in constraction, between the Thompson and the partial Bantz patent,

—_

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 41

explain what the difference, in effect, is; and what is, the cause of that

difference ?

A. 7. Mr. Thompson lost his heat in a long narrow flue, whilst Mr.

Bantz’s being direct through a fourteen-inch wall under the front of the

boiler. Thompson had nothing under the boiler to make the heat strike

the boiler and keep it there, whilst Mr. Bantz had reverberatory cham-

bers, cima reversa bottom, and descending flue.

his

HENRY + WILSON,

mark,

Test:

HENRY WILLIAMS.

45 Testimony of G. E. Bantz.

(). 1. State your name, age, residence, and occupation.

A. 1. G. Ernest Bantz is my name; my age, thirty-two years; my res-

idence, Frederick, Maryland ; and my occupation, a currier.

(). 2. Are you related to Mr. Gideon Bantz; if so, how?

A. 2. [am. Iam his son.

(). 3, Do you remember when he began to use tan as fuelin his furnace ?

A. 3. I remember when he first began to use wet tan, but not dry tan

exclusively.

Q.4. Did you ever know one Moses Thompson? If so, when and

where did you tirst become acquainted with him, and under what cir-

cumstances ?

A. 4. I did know Moses Thompson. I became acquainted with him

in Frederick, when he came here to get information in reference to his

furnace, :

().5. Did you ever know of Mr. Gideon Bantz making a model and

drawings of a furnace for burning tan as fuel for Moses Thompson? If

yes, state all you know about it.

A. 5.:My father made his model and drawing. I saw him make them.

The drawing herewith, marked Exhibit D, I saw him make.

(). 6. Did you ever see a furnace built in accordance with Mr. Thomp-

son’s model and drawing? If yes, when and where?

A. 6. I did see one of Thompson’s furnaces in March, 1854, at my

father’s tan yard.

. 7. Was this furnace operative and satisfactory ? If yes, how long

was itinuse? If no, why not? Give the reasons fully.

A. 7. It was not successful, for the reason that we could pot make suf-

ficient steam to run the machinery one-fourth of the time.

@. 8. Did you ever see a drawing of a furnace for burning tan as fuel

having two or more fire-chambers, not arranged under the boiler, with

a combustion chamber above the top of said fire-chambers, and located

directly under the front end of the boiler? If so, when and where did

you first see such drawing? State all you know about it, and how you

fix your dates.

A. 8. I have seen such an one as is represented by my father’s patent.

I saw the drawing in June, 1854, at my father’s yard. My father made

the drawing ; it was posted against the wall there for six or seven years.

I fix the date by the fact that directly after that time my father pur-

chased a boiler, the date of which is upon the receiving books of the

railroad company.

(). 9. Did you ever see a furnace built according to the said drawings?

If yes, when and where? State all you know of it.

42 BANTZ VS, FRANTZ ET AL.

A. 9%. I saw the one in use on my father’s yard ; it was up and ready

for the boiler on the 6th of July, 1854.

(). 10. How did said furnace operate, successfully or otherwise? If

successfully, state the reasons, and your opportunities for knowing ; and

compare the success of said furnace with the suecess of the Thompson

furnace, and state whether either was superior; and if so, why?

A. 10. [t gave entire satisfaction ; so much so, that it has been in use

all the time since, and afforded suflicient steam for all our purposes with-

out giving any trouble. My opportunities for knowing about the two

furnaces were, that I was about the yard all the time, and I know, from

practical observation, that Thompson’s furnace failed to act, and that

my father’s gave entire satisfaction. The reason why Thompson’s far-

nace did not act, it did not furnish sufficient heat, and what it did fur-

nish was lost in the long, narrow flue, or mixing chamber, at the rear of

the furnace. It was so hot at the rear that it fired the tan bank; we

were compelled to dig it out and put clay in. In my father’s furnace .

the heat from the furnace is applied immediately under the boiler,

46 Cross-interrogatories to G. E. BANTZ:

Answer each of the cross- interrogatories addressed to Gideon

Bantz.

X Q. 1 (to Gideon Bantz). Was ever a furnace constructed entirely

like your patent with cima reversa bottom, with reverberatory chambers,

diving flue, &c., ever built? If so, state where, and by whom, and for

whom.

A. 1. I never saw any other but those erected by my father.

X @. 2 (to Gideon Bantz). Do you know of anybody who is using

such a furnace, with reverberatory chambers? If so, who, and where.

A. 2. | know of none, except my father’s, from my own knowledge ;

I have e hee ard of others trom other people.

X (). 3 (to Gideon Bantz). Did you not state, as a witness in your

own behalf, in the case of yourself against Elsas & Pritz,in the district

court for the southern district of Ohio, that you made your invention,

originally, in Jane of the year 1854, and that vou applied for your pat-

ent in Mareh, 1855

A. 3. This is a a to my father.

XQ. 4 (to Gideon Bantz). Did you not in that case state that you

made your first furnace in August, L854, the next in 1859, and that the

former of the two was being altered and changed by you, more or less,

until perfected ?

A. 4. In the Bantz furnace the fire-chamber, or chambers, are sur-

rounded on top by dead chamber, or dead chambers, to insure safety from

fire and comfort to the workmen. The fire-chamber, or chambers, are

connected to the boiler or object to be beated direct, and when in oper-

ation are opened and remain so as long as you may want their heat ;

they are continuous in their operation (not intermittent, as in the Thomp-

son); they are fired as often as they need replenishing ; the products of

combustion are consumed immediately under the boiler, or object to be

heated; it is at this point the live heat is laid to be conducted off by the

boiler, or object to be heated. |

X Q@. 5. Have you never seen side or back doors for taking out ashes

in kitchen ranges, steam furnaces, or stoves, before you saw them in

Bantz’s wet-fuel furnace ?

A. 5. I have séen them in stoves, but never in furnaces before my

father’s.

X Q. 6. If the cima reversa and the reverberating chambers, and the

dead chambers, are all left out what do you then consider the charac-

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 43

teristic difference between the Bantz furnace from the Thompson fuar-

nace? |

A. 6. The Thompson furnace consists of a series of burning chambers,

each of which (i. e. the burning chambers) is provided with a short con-

tracted flue containing a damper, and these short contracted flues are

attached to a long narrow flue or mixing chamber; this apart from the

boiler or thing to be heated. The Bantz furnace consists of a fire-cham-

ber, or chambers, supplied with or without a dead chamber or cham-

bers, and they, the fire chamber or chambers, are connected to the

boiler or tbing to be heated direct.

X Q. 7. 1f under cross-interrogatory 6 you have shown the ditterence

in construction between the Thompson and the partial Bantz patent,

explain what the difference in effect is, and what is the cause of that

difference,

A. 7. In the Thompson the burning chambers are to be alternately

charged, and their front and rear dampers closed at the same time, and

opened at the same time; (they are not continuous in their operation) ;

whatever is unconsumed in the burning chambers is to be consumed by

the aid of the long narrow flue or mixing chamber on its way to and

apart from the boiler or thing to be heated. It is at this point what lit-

tle heat furnished by the burning chambers is conducted off to a serious

extent by the surrounding brick work, earth and air before it reaches

the boiler or thing to be heated.

7 G. ERNEST BANTZ.,

Subseribed and sworn to before me this seventh day of April, A. D.

18ii.

HENRY WILLIAMS,

Notary Public, Frederick, Maryland.

47 Testimony of John Devall.

(). 1. State your name, age, residence, and occupation.

A. 1, My name is John Dewall; I will be sixty-one years old next

June; and my occupation a tanner.

(). 2. How long have you been engaged by your present employer,

and in your present employment ?

‘A. 2. I have been tanning thirty-two vears, and all that time with Mr.

Bantz. 7

Q. 5. Did you ever know one Moses Thompson? If ves, when, and

under what circumstances did you become acquainted, and how do you

fix dates?

A. 5. I did know Moses Thompson; I knew him in the summer of

1853, when he came to see about burning wet tan. I fix my date by

two things: first, Mr. Bantz’s father died in 1854, and Mr. Bantz’s son

Marion, made a mark of the date, 1854, on the side of the boiler wall

when it was put up, and I know that Mr. Thompson was here the sum-

mer before.

(). 4. Do you know anvthing of Mr. Bantz’s making bim a model and

drawing of a furnace for burning tan as fuel? If so, what do you

know ?

A. 4. I saw Mr. Bantz make a model and drawing both for him in the

yard.

(). 5. Did you ever see a furnace made according to that model and

drawing; if so, when and where?

A. 5. I did see Thompson’s furnace in March, 1854, built aecording to

that model and drawing. I was the engiveer and tried to run it.

44 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL.

Q. 6. How did that furnace operate? State all you know of it, and

whether Mr. Thompson had anything to do with it.

A. 6. It did not operate at all; we worked at it day and night, some-

times all night, and Mr. Thompson himself was there sometimes ‘as late

as eleven. or twelve o'clock:at night. Mr. Thompson bimself said it

would not act; that he was sorry he had undertaken it. I told Mr.

santz if he did not make some other arran gement I would quit, and he

told me to hold on; that he would put one “there that would act.

(). 7. Did you ev er know of any alteration being made in this furnace

by Mr. Thompson, or any one else ?

A. 7. He tried several times to alter the flues, etc., but it would not

act; it would burn the tan-bank behind but would not go under the

boiler. I advised several times to put the boiler over the long flue, and

we would stand a better chance to make steam.

(). 8. Ifow long was it in use, and where?

A. 8. We used it about five months on Mr. Bantz’s tan-yard.

(). 9. Did you ever see a furnace for burning tan with two or more

fire- chambers arranged under the boiler, with a combustion-chamber or

reservoir above the top of said fire-chambers, and located directly under

the front end of the boiler? If yes, where and when first, and how do

you fix the date?

A.9 I have seen Mr. Bantz’s, which is arranged in that way. I fix

my date in the same way that. I did in reference to Mr. Thompsou’s

furnace,

(). 10. Did you ever see the original drawing of that furnace; if yes,

where and when?

A. 10. I did; when we were building it in the engine-room.

@. 11. How did that furnace work? and compare the success of the

same with the success of the Thompson, stating which was superior,

and why.

A. 11. It worked well, and there was as much difference as between

day and night, in favor of the Bantz furnace, over the Thompson fur-

nace, for the reason that the Bantz furnace got up steam and kept it up

all day without stopping. We could grind more bark in one day with

the Bantz furnace than we could in a month with the Thompson.

48 Cross-interrogatories to JOHN DEWALL:

Answer each of the cross-interrogatories addressed to Gideon

Bantz.

X Q. 1. (To Gideon Bantz.) Was ever a furnace constructed entirely

like your patent with cima reversa bottom, with reverberatory cham.

bers, diving flue, ete., ever built? Ifso, state where and by whom and

for whom.

A. 1. I never saw any except Mr. Bantz’s, now in use on his tan-yard.

X Q. 2. Do you know of anybody who is using such a furnace with

reverberatory chambers? If so, who and where ?

A. 2. I don’t know of any other except the one now in use on Mr.

Bantz’s tan-yard. I have heard of others, through Mr. Wisong, who

saw them in his travels, infringing on Mr. Bantz’s patent.

X Q. 3. Did you not state as a witness, in your own behalf, in the

case of yourself against Elsas & Pritz, in the district court for the south-

ern district of Ohio, that you made your invention originally in June,

of the year 1854, and that you applied for your patent in March, 1855 ?

A. 3. This question applies to Mr. Bantz.

X Q. 4. Did you not in that case state that you made your first

Bei Sig: 5 cAI ls MTT 0 ass ie it Aaa cab

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 45

furnace in August, 1554, the next in 1859, and that the former of the

two was being altered and changed by you, more or less, until perfected ?

A. 4. This also applies to Mr. Bantz.

X Q. 5. Have you never seen side or back door for taking out ashes

in kitchen ranges, steam furnaces, or stoves, before you saw them in

Bantz’s wet-fuel furnanee ?

A. 5. Ihave seen them in cook stoves to be taken out in front or side,

but never by the side of a boiler betore Mr. Bantz’s.

X Q. 6. If the ciina reversa and the reverberating-chambers, and the

dead-chambers are all left out, what do you then consider the character-

istic difference between the Bantz furnace from the Thompson furnace ?

A. 6. It would be pretty much like Thompson’s, and would not act at

all. |

X. Q. 7. If under cross-interrogatories you have shown the difference

in construction between the Thompson and the partial Bantz patent,

explain what the difference in effect is, and what is the cause of that

difference ?

A. 7. In Thompson’s furnace the heat had to travel twenty feet

through a narrow fiue, and in that distance lost all of its life; in Mr.

Bantz’s patent the heat was applied directly in front of the boiler from

the burning chambers.

JOHN DEWALL.

Certificate.

STATE OF MARYLAND,

FREDERICK COUN’Y, to wit:

I, Henry Williams, a notary public for the county of Frederick, State

of Maryland, do hereby certify that the foregoing depositions were duly

taken, sworn to, and subscribed before me, at the time and place men-

tioned. |

Given under my hand and notarial seal this seventh day of April, A.

D. 1877.

: HENRY WILLIAMS,

Notary Public, Frederick, Maryland.

49 Circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky.

GIDEON LANTZ }

rs, ,

DAVID FRANTZ. ET a. §

The respondents will take notice that the complainant will examine

witnesses in the above-named cause, under the 67th rule in equity as

amended, before competent authority, examiner, at the office of Hatch

& Parkinson, No. 8 West 3d street, Cincinnati, Ohio, on Monday, the

23d day of April, 1877, beginning said examination at 9 o’clock a. m. of

said day, and continuing trom day to day until completed.

HATCH & PARKINSON,

; Sols for Complainant.

Received copy April 10th, 1877.

LEWIS N. DEMBITZ,

Solicitor for Def’ ts.

Here follows copy of depositions taken in pursuance of the foregoing

notice.

46 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL.

50 Depositions,

Circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky. In

equity.

GIDEON BANYTZ }

vs.

DAVID FRANTZ ET os, 5

Examination of witnesses on belialfof the complainant, under the 67th rule

in equity, as amended, in accordance with the annexed notice, before

Ernest H. Rydal, notary pablie and acting special examiner, on Mon-

day, the 25rd day of April, 1577.

Present: J. E. Hatch, esq., of Hatch & Parkinson, tor complainant ;

L. N. Dembitz, esq., for respondents.

FRANK MILLWARD, a witness called on behalf of complainant, being

first duly cautioned and sworn, deposes and says as follows in answer

to interrogatories propounded to him by JOHN E. Harca, Esq., of coun-

sel for complainant :

(Question 1. State your name, age,- residence, and occupation, and

whether or not you are the same Frank Millward heretofore examined in

this case.

Answer 1. Frank Millward; age, forty-three; solicitor of patents and

mechanical engineer; lL reside at Ludlow, Kentucky; wy office is in Cin-

cinnati, Ohie; Iam the same person that testified in this suit previously

of that name.

(). 2. Please look at Exhibit M T:‘now shown you, being the file of the

application of Moses Thompson for a furnace marked * Patented April

10th, 1855,” state whether or not you have examined it, and understand

the construction of the furnace shown in the drawings thereto attached ?

A. 2. I have carefully read and examined the said exhibit, and be-

lieve Lunderstand the construction and operation of the furnace therein

shown and described. :

(). 5. Please state how a furnace constructed in accordance with the

drawings of said patent woukl compare with or differ from one con-

structed in accordance with the reissued patent, No. 4731, granted Gid-

eon Bantz, and give your reasons for any opinion you may express, re-

ferring especially to the features of the Bantz furnace, claimed in the

first and third claims of the reissue ?

A. 3. In my former testimony I have given the essential construe-

tion of the Bantz furnace, as described and shown in the Bantz patent,

reissue 4731, in relation to the improvement specified in the first claim,

and also with relation to that part of the improvement which is covered

by the third claim. I have stated that the Bantz furnace consists, in

so far as it relates to the first claim, of a steam boiler furnace, con-

structed specially for burning wet fuels, having two chambers—fire-

chambers, located in the front of the boiler, and not under the same,

these fire chambers communicating with the combustion-chamber lo.

eated above the fire-chamber, and immediately under the front end of

the boiler. The claim upon this part of the improvement reads as fol-

lows: “In a furnace tor burning wet fuels, having two or more single

fire-chambers not arranged under the boiler, the combustion-chamber or

reservoir C, arranged above the top of said fire-chambers, and located

directly under the front end of the boiler.” In comparing this improve-

ment with the furnace shown and described in Exhibit M T, I find as

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 7 47

follows: That the furnace described in said Exhibit M T is not a steam

boiler furnace, but is a combination of three fire chambers for burning

wet fuéls, all communicating with a cross flue, which also communicates

with a direct flue from said « cross flue, the chambers each having a dam-

per or valve operating to cut off communication from each chamber to

said cross flue, or to open the same at will, so that the operator can

smother two fires and keep the other burning brightly. It is said in

the patent that a boiler may be attached to this furnace ; and if it is

so attached, the flue which extends from the cross flue must be made

of a shape, size, ete., to properly enclose the boiler. There is no boiler

shown in connection with the furnace and no construction indicated

in any way by which a constructor could combine a boiler with

such a furnace, in aby particular way. The patent, however,

51 states that the boiler, when attached, is placed in connection with

the flue marked I. I¢ is not, theretore, intended to place the

boiler over the cross flue marked F, and the cross flue marked F is cov-

ered by a crown or arch of brick-work, which would prevent it being

used as a combustion-chamber under the front endof the boiler, in such

away that the gases in the combustion-chamber could act upon the

boiler in the generation of steam. This Thompson furnace is, in con-

struction and operation, entirely different from the construction and op-

eration essential to the embodiment of the bantz improvement, as ex-

pressed in the Bantz patent, reissue 4751, and summed up particularly

in the first claim thereof, for the following reasons:

First, the Thompson furnace is nowhere shown and described to be

in connection with a steam boiler at all, in such a way as to enable a

constructor to build the same, as there is no drawing attached, and po

specific description to guide a builder in combining a steam boiler with

such a furnace.

Second, the Thompson furnace has no combustion-chamber or reser-

voir arranged above the top of its fire-chambers, and located directly

under the front end of the boiler; and,

Third, it has no combustioa-chamber corresponding with or adapted

to perform the functions for which the Bantz combustion-chamber C is

designed.

I have before stated fully, that it is necessary to the fulfillment of the

Bantz improvement, that the two furnaces should unite in a combustion-

chamber located under the front end of the steam boiler, and arranged

to operate upon such steam boiler; there is no such construction shown

or described in Exhibit M T. I before stated, also, that that portion of

the Bbantz improvement which is summed up in the third claim thereof,

relates to the same construction of furnace, reservoir or combustion-

chamber, arranged as I have deseribed, with the addition thereof of the

said door or doors for the admission of atmospheric air. It is sufficient

to say, with reference to the Thompson furnace, that it has no combus-

tion-chamber corresponding with the combustion chamber C of the Bantz

patent in any respect with relation to the steam boiler, and, as this re-

servoir or chamber is the most essential requisite of that part of the im-

provement covered by the said third claim, it cannot be said with reason

that the Thompson furnace embraces the improvement shown and de-

scribed in the Bantz reissue, No. 4731, and specified in said third claim.

Il am clearly of the opinion that said Thompson furnace does not em-

brace said improvement.

Q. 4. What is the object of the combnstion-chamber C in the Ban tz

patent? :

A. 4. It performs two offices; one, a reservoir for receiving heated

48 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL.

gases for communication to the front end of the steam boiler, and the

other, to unite and mingle the gases in a reverberatory manver which

are received from the two fire-cham bers. .

@. 5. What is the object of its particular location, and is there any

especial importance attached to the particular point at which it is

located ?

A. 5. In burning wet fuels it is important that it should be located at

the end of the furnace, so that the boiler may not have to extend over

the top of the fuel chambers, and it is important that the boiler should

extend over the combustion-chamber, so that the gases received into it

may communicate their heat to the steam boiler directly.

(). 6. At what part of the steam boiler should the greatest heat be

applied ?

A. 6. The most effective end of the steam boiler is that immediately

in connection with the hottest part of the furnace, and in this case, this

part is the combustion-chamber, so .that it is important that the heat

derived from this combustion-chamber should be utilized as speedily as

possible upon the sheets of the boiler.

(). 7. Considering the size of the tlue F in the defendants’ Exhibit M

T, state whetber, in your opinion, that would be sufficient to act as an

effective combustion-chamber, even were a boiler placed over the flue I,

and with its end projecting over the flue Fk?

52 A. 7. This flue F, in the‘Thompson patent, is simply a long

cross flue. I do not see how a boiler could be placed over the fiue

I with its forward end covering the whole of the flue I’, as the flue F

extends too far on each side to permit any boiler having the requisite

propoctious in relation to the furnaces, to cover it. Ifa boiler the size

necessary for such fire chambers, were located. over flue I and extending

over tlue I’, or rather over the middle of it, as it could not extend over it

for its entire width, this flue F could not be regarded as a combustion

chamber, within the meaning of the Bantz patent. It has no capacity

for reverberation, and no capacity for the proper mingling of the gases

received from the several fire-cham bers, and it would have to be changed

materially, in construction, to enable it to act at all upon a steam boiler,

in the manner indicated in the question; as it would have to have its

crown removed at that portion below the end of the boiler, and its crown

retained at the sides where no boiler covered it.

(). 8. Please state whether or not in your opinion with a furnace like

the Thompson drawing and a boiler placed simply over the flue I with-

out covering over the flue I* sufficient heat could be applied to be eftec-

tive, and give the reasons for your opinion.

A. 8. It would not. The heat is delivered from the furnace into the

cross flue I, which would be exposed at the ends and other portions so

that a great amount of heat would be lost by radiation and conduction

before it reached the boiler at all, and the boiler would be too far re-

moved from contact with the direct heat from the fires to be eflicient

as a Steam generator.

Q. 9. Look at the drawing now shown you marked Respondent’s Ex-

hibit A, being the diagram referred to in the deposition of A. Frantz,

junior, as a drawing of the furnace now used by the respondent, and

state how the furnace, shown in said drawing, compares with, or differs

from, both the furnace shown in the drawing of Exhibit M T, and from

the turnace shown in the drawing of the Bantz reissue No. 4731, and

state which of said last two drawings, the drawings of the Frantz fur-

nace most nearly resembles, and give your reasons for your comparisons.

A. 9. The Frantz furnace, as shown by the Exhibit A, is substantially

ate” ya ca

Mego

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 49

the same in construction and mode of operation as the furnace shown in

the Bantz reissue, with relation to the separate improvements claimed

in said reissue, in the first and third claims thereof, and the furnace shown

by this drawing, Exhibit A, is substantially different from the furnace

shown in the Thompson drawing, Exhibit M T, for the following rea-

sons: This drawing, Exhibit A, is a steam-boiler furnace, embracing

two fire-chambers, adapted to burn wet fuel, both chambers communi-

eating with a combustion chamber, common to both, which forms a

reservoir for the reception of the gasses, and the proper mingling of the

same by reverberation, this combustion chamber being above the fire-

chambers and directly under the front end of the boiler, and this draw-

ing, Exhibit A. shows also that the combustion chamber is provided

with a side door, adapted to admit air for the regulation of the tempe-

rature and admission of oxygen to support combustion within the cham-

ber; owing to the fact, therefore, that the furnace shown by this Ex-

hibit A embraces this construction, lam of the opinion, clearly, that it

embodies the separate improvements specified in the Bantz reissue, and

set forth in the first and third claims thereof. It is not the same as the

furnace shown in the Thompson patent, Exhibit M T, for the reason that

it has this combustion chamber so arranged and operated, which the

Thompson furnace has not.

Q. 10. I call your attention now to the second figure from the top of

Exhibit A, longitudinally of the cross section of the Frantz furnace and

boiler, and ask you particularly to note the door s’, and state supposing

it to appear in evidence that the door s is to draw out ashes, ete., and

noting the difference of the shading of the part about door s’, and

noting also the top view of the furnace or the “ plan of the lower floor,”

as itis called being the last view or figure upon Exhibit A, I ask you

to state whether or not the Frantz furnace has the reverberatory cham-

bers set out in the Bantz patent.

53 A. 10. The reverberatory chambers to which my attention is

now called, as shown in the Bantz reissue, consist of pits or de-

pressions in the brickwork under the boiler, into which the gases, as

they are delivered from the combustion chamber, may pass and rever-

berate, and these chambers are provided with doors to admit air or per-

mit cleaning. I find in drawing, Exhibit A, that although the section

which appears second from the top in the drawing is badly colored, it

. represents two chambers, into which the gases, after they leave the com-

bustion chamber, may pass and reverberate; one of these chambers being

provided with a door marked s’. This door may be used to admit air for

the purpose of governing the temperature under the boiler, and to per-

mit the cleaning out of the reverberating chamber. These chambers

in the Bantz reissue have no relation of course in construction or func-

tion with the improvement shown and described in said reissue, and re-

ferred to particularly in the first and third claims, for the reason that

their operations or functions are performed whether there is a combus-

tion chamber or not, or whether the steam-boiler furnace is one for burn-

ing wet fuel or otherwise, and the functions of the fuel chambers and

combustion chamber and side doors opening into the combustion cham-

ber are performed definitely and perfectly whether there are any rever-

beratory chambers beyond them under the boiler or not; but whatever

the importance of the reverberatory chambers may be, as shown and

described in the Bantz reissue, they are certainly embraced in the tur-

nace shown in Exhibit A, and for the same apparent purpose.

Q. 11. Do you know wuether or not reverberatory chambers under

REc. 330—4

50 BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL.

steam boilers were old at the date of 1854, or whether they were new at

that time?

A. 11. JI knew of no boiler before I became acquainted with the Bantz

steam-boiler furnace, which was so made as that its fire-chambers were

in front of the boiler and discharged into a combustion chamber under

the front end of the boiler; but I knew of boilers before 1854, and they

are quite common now, in which the combustion chamber is the fire-

chamber; it is located, of course, under the front end of the boiler.

There are no combustion chambers other tha: those. And before 1854

I was aware that it was common to make the brickwork so that after the

gases has passed over the bridge wall they would descend into pits or

depressions for reverberation, and these pits or depressions were sijmi-

lar to the ones-marked D in the Bantz reissue, and provided with doors

opening into the same.

(). 12. Do you know whether or vot wet tan could be burned in a fur-

nace of sueh construction ?

A. 12. It could not, in my opinion, and I know of no attempt at burn-

ing wet tan in such a boiler furnace. The combination of the fuel cham-

bers in front of the boiler, and not under it, and the combustion cham-

ber uniting the fuel chambers, and immediately under the front end of

the boiler, so that. the gasses evolved from the furnaces may be com-

bined, so as to act with great efficiency upon the boiler, is, it seems to

me, the only practical solution to the question of burning wet fuels for

the generation of steam in a steam boiler.

«). 13. Do you know whether er not the Elsas & Pritz farnace used

by the defendants in the case of Gideon Bantz vs. Elsas & Pritz, and

for the use of which the defendants were enjoined, and in which ease

you testified a witness, had reverberatory chambers ?

A. 15. It had not.

(). 14. What is the use of the door s’’, shown in the second figure of

Exhibit A?

A. 14, Its important functions are, first, that it can admit air in any

desired quantity for the regulation of the draft of the furnace and for

the admission of oxygen to support combustion, and it serves the other

purpose of enabling the attendant to inspect the condition of the fur-

nace or combustion of gases at any time.

@. 15. Can it be used effectively to rake ont ashes from the combus-

tion chamber ?

A. 15. It could not, as it is evident by inspection of the drawings. It’

is located at the side of the furnace, opening into the combustion cham.

ber, and above the combustion chamber is an inclined plane, descending

into the fuel chamber, All the dirt which would collect upon the inclined

plane would descend by gravity into the fuel chamber, or could be

scraped into the same when the fuel chamber was cleaned. It is obvious

that whatever dirt may collect in said combustion chamber could not be

drawn out by scrapers or otherwise through the side doors practicably ;

the door is not for that purpose.

o4 (). 16. State what the object of the diving flue, deseribed in the

Bantz reissue, is; and what, if any, connection it has with the

combination of devices claimed in the first claim.

A. 16, It is for the purpose, as stated in the patent, of causing the

heat to hug the rear portion of the boiler, and to extinguish the sparks

from the furnace. Its funetion would be performed just the same in

any furnace under a steam boiler, whether it was a wet-fuel furnace,

located in front of the boiler, and having a combustion chamber above

the fuel furnace and under the boiler, or not. The funetion of this

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 51

diving flue is not one which co-operates in any way with the functions

of the fuel chambers and combustion chambers, as the functions of the

latter are performed completely, whether the diving flue is present or

not; it is merely an additional feature at the end of the boiler, to per-

form a separate and distinet function, which has no relation to other

functions performed by constructions appearing in other parts of the

furnace.

Q. 17. What is the object of the dead chambers that are described in

the Bantz reissue, and what, if any, connection they have with the

features claimed in the first claim?

A. 17. They also have a distinet function to perform, which is in rela-

tion to the functions performed by the combination of the wet-fuel

chambers and the combustion chamber in which they unite. These

dead chambers are formed in the brick work of the fuel chambers,

above the arches thereof, and filled with ashes, or other material, for

the purpose of forming a partial non conductor, which will resalt in

keeping the top of the fuel chambers, which is used as a platform for

the men to stand upon, comparatively cool.

(). 18. What is the object of the cima reversa bottom to the combus-

tion chamber, deseribed in the Bantz reissue? State whether or vot it

has any necessary connection with the combination of elements claimed

in the first claim.

A. 18. It has no necessary connection whatever, as the functions of

the tuel chambers and combustion chamber are performed whether the

bottom of the combustion chamber is of the precise form designed by

santz, or simply inclined, but be states that this formation by cima

reversa curve Is preferred, because it gives a free opening to the throat

and causes the heated products of combustion to hug the bottoin of the

boiler. It is simply a preterred shape, and adapted to give a little bet-

ter result than if not inclined. That is all.

@ 19. What difference would it make in the construction of a furnace,

having the fire chambers and combustion chamber shown in the Bautz

patent, if the dead chambers, the cima reversa bottom, the reverberatory

chambers, and the diving flue were all omitted?

A. 19. It would make no difference substantially in the construction

of the combination of fuel chambers and eombustion chamber in con-

nection with the steam boiler, and the operation of these parts, and the

door leading into the combustion chamber would be the same, and the

results identical, no matter whether the parts mentioned in the question

were present or absent. This is obvious.

Dd: Cross-examination by L. N. DE™MBITZ, Esq., counsel for the

defendants:

X @. 1. Whatdo you mean by leaving out the reverberatory cham

bers ; do you inean to take out the walls, or fill them up ?

A. 1. Fill up the depressions between the walls, so as to make it like

the drawing of the Elsas Pritz furnace, or of any other furnace witbout

reverberating eham bers.

X. Q. 2. If you did so, would the combustion chamber be materially

deeper than it is in the Moses Thompson turnace ? ;

A. 2. IT understand that the Moses Thompson furnace has no combus-

tion chamber at all, within the meaning of the Bantz reissue, or one ca-

pable of performing the functions of a combustion chamber, shown in

the drawing Exbibit A, to which my attention is now directed.

X Q. 3. If those depressions were filled up, as stated before, would

the combustion chamber be materially deeper than that part of the Mo-

ses Thompson turnace which is called the flue, the horizontal flue?

52 BANTZ V8. FRANTZ ET AL.

A. 3. I do not quite understand the question with reference to its al-

lusion to the Thompson furnace, bat, to make the matter plain, I will

state, referring to the drawing Exhibit A, or to the drawing of the

Bantz reissue, the depth of the combustion chamber need not be

changed in the least, no matter whether the reverberatory chambers are

present or absent.

X Q. 4. If those reverberatory chambers are filled up, how much height

would remain for the combustion chambers of the Bantz furnace, as de-

scribed in the drawing attached to the patent?

A. 4. I do not understand how the filling ap of the reverberatory

chambers could affect the height of the combustion chamber; therefore, .

I do not understand the question.

X Q. 5. Do you not consider the reverberatory chambers as_ part of

the combustion chamber. .

A. 5. No; they haveno relation whatever to the combustion cham-

ber; the combustion chamber is marked C in the patent, and the rever-

beratory Chambers are marked D. They have no necessary connection

and construction, or operation.

X Q. 6. How do you call the space above the walls which form the

reverberatory chambers ?

A. 6. The smoke throat.

X Q. 7. How high is the smoke throat in the Bantz patent? |

A. 7. The drawing of the Bantz patent is not a scale drawing, as I

understand the same; therefore, lcaunot give any definite size to the

smoke throat; but there is no reason why it should differ in depth

from the smoke throats of ordinary furnaces under steain boilers.

X Q. 38. What is.the height of such smoke throats ?

A. 3. They are usually made deepest in the middle and shallowest at

the sides; with a boiler torty inches in diameter and thirty feet long

the smoke throat would not be deeper than from six to nine inches in

the middle, and but three to four inches at the sides.

X Q. 9 Is not the smoke throat in effeet a combustion chamber ?

A. 9. It is not; but simply a flue.

X Q. 10. Does not the process of combustion go on in the smoke

throat?

A. 10. No; if the gases leave the combustion chamber ec, I don’t

think that any operation which can be called combrstion can be pro-

ceeded with, although the flame and products of combustion extend,

of course, for some distance under the boiler.

X Q@. 11. If you say that no further process of combustion can go on

atier the products leave the chamber ec, what is the object of the

doors in the reverberatory chambers, of which you say they are to admit

oxygen?

A. 11. I have not referred to these doors in the reverberatory cham-

bers as being designed to admit oxygen, but to the doors which leads

into the combustion chamber. The doors in the reverberatory chawn-

bers need not be used at all for this purpose, although they could admit

air for the regulation of the draft and reduction of temperature.

56 X Q. 12. Look at the flue F in the drawing attached to the

Moses Thompson patent and state whether it has not, in fact, a

combustion chamber.

A. 12. Not so far as it enables the hot gases trom one furnace to

another to ignite the cooler gases from another. It may act as such to

a certain extent. It is not a combustion chamber within the meaning

of the Bantz combustion chamber, as shown and deseribed in the Baniz

reissue. It is simply a long flue extending across the three fuel cham-

etal ee

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 53

bers. in which the gases may unite to a certain extent, for the purpose

of a proper ignition of those evolved from the furnace just fed.

X @. 13. Why would not the flae F, in the Moses Thompson parent,

work exactly like the combustiou chamber in the Bantz patent ?

A. 13. It has not the construction, form, and arrangement to enable

it to perform that office.

X Q. 15. In what material respect does it differ trom it?

A, 14. It is nothing more than a cross tlue, as I said before, which

unites the gases received from the three fire chambers, just as the street

main receives water from different directions. [tis not located with re-

ference to forming a combustion chamber within the meaning of the Bantz

improvement, and it is not capacious enough to permit reverberation

and mixing of the gases and not adapted in its form and arrangement,

to receive oxygen properly tosupport combustion. In my opinion, it is

designed tor a different purpose, as compared with the combustion

chathber ayo and deseribed in the Bantz reissue.

X @. 15, Can you state from an inspection of the drawing what the

square contents of the cross section of the flue F would be?

A. 15. [ presume the question refers to the superficial area in the tlae

in cross section, and I will say that the drawing is not drawn to a scale,

but I should judge it would be probably one foot in superficial area in a

full sized furnace.

X Q. 16. How much would the square contents of the cross section of

the combustion chamber of the Bantz furnace be ?

A. 16. The combustion chamber in the Bantz reissue is of peculiar

formation, commencing with the throat leading out of the fuel chambers

and greatly expanding or flaring, so as to form a capacious c¢'amber

in which the gases may reverberate, and exposure on the principal part,

so that the heat may act directly upon the front end of the boiler. It

requires some little measurement and caleulation to determine what the

superficial area would be, but without going over these figures, I should

judge that it would be about two square feet in superficial area or more in

a furnace with, say,a five foot length of grid bar.

X Q. 17. What is the area of the combustion chamber in defendants’

furnace?

A.17. About the same, I should judge, or a little less, owing to the in-

clined form of the bottom.

X Q. 18. What is the object of the narrow throat that leads into the

combustion chamber in the Bantz patent ?

A. 18. To concentrate and intensify the emissions from the fuel cham-

bers.

X Q. 19. Do you consider this narrow throat material ?

A. 19. The patent does not state that the throat should be of any

particular size, but it should be of course of a size not too large fora

proper inspection of the products of combustion into the combustion

chamber, and not too smail to permit the free exit of gases from the fuel

chamber.

X Q. 20. Have you looked at any furnaces for the burning of wet fuels

_ you gave your former open in this case?

20. | have not.

x'Q. 21. Did you ever see a Sennen furnace at work ?

A. 21. No, sir.

X Q. 22. Since you gave your last deposition in this case, have you

wearer" any works on furnaces of this sort ?

A. 22. On wet-fuel furnaces? No, I do not think these are any such

works.

5A BANTZ V8. FRANTZ ET AL.

57 X. Q. 23. Are you still of the opinion expressed in your former

deposition that the opening of the side doors would increase the

blaze ?

A. 23. The opening of the side doors sufficient to admit sufficient oxy-

gen to support combustion properly would increase the blaze.

X Q. 24. Where there was no sufficient oxygen provided before, have

you ever tried the effect of opening the side doors in wet-fuel furnaces

when the furnace was heated ?

A. 24. Yes, several times.

X @. 25. In whose furnace ? :

A. 25. Elsas & Pritz’s.

X @. 26. What was the effect on the fire?

A. 26. With a partial opening the effect would be to intensify combus-

tion and reduction of smoke; a wide opening would have the effect of

reducing the temperature and an increase of smoke

X Q. 27. Whereon is your opinion based that a furnace constructed

like that of Messrs. Thompson could not impart any sufficient heat to

the boiler?

A. 27. From an observation of the construction of the furnace de-

scribed in the patent alone.

X Q. 28. Have you ever seen any furnace analogous to it and watched

its effect, and found from your own experience that the boiler would not

be heated properly ?

A. 28. No; [do not think that any constructor would combine a steam

boiler with the flue I of the Thompson furnace, and expect to realize

much in the way of the generation of steam therefrom. It would be al-

most like putting a steam boiler in a smoke-stack.

X @. 29. What means of knowledge have you that it would not get

heated, more than other persons ?

A, 29. My knowledge is derived from experience in construction of

steam boilers and uses of the same; and there are others, of course, who

possess the same knowledge to the same extent, or more, who have been

in the habit of constructing and using steam-botlers.

X @. 50. Have you ever seen any steam-boiler at all analogous in its

construction to the Messrs. Thompson furnace or boiler arrangement,

whether heated by coal or by anything else?

A. 30. There is no definite arrangement shown for a steam-boiler in

the Thompson patent at all, as L before explained, and [ am unable to

say what Thompson intended to do in the way of construction when he

speaks of attaching a steam-boiler to the flue I. Lam, therefore, una-

ble to put a definite construction on an indefinite one alluded to in the

Thompson patent.

X Q. 31. Is there anything in the papers of Thompson to prevent the

steam-boiler, trout of the steam-boiler, trom being placed over the

flue F?

A. 31. 1 presume there was nothing to prevent Thompson trom con-

structing a steam-boiler and furnace in all respects like the Bantz, if he

had conceived the invention and been competent to reduce it to pfae-

tical form, but, after inspection of the Thompson drawing, it is evident

that he has not done so. The arch of the tlue F alone effects a com-

plete enclosure of the flue on the top, and there is no provision for di-

recting the gases from the flue to the end of the steam-boiler arranged

over said flue F.

X Q. 32. Is this arch over flue F an obstacle to putting the boiler

over it?

BANTZ VS. FRANTZ ET AL. 55

A. 32. Certainly it is an obstacle to the use of the flue as a means of

heating the steam-boiler.

(Signature of witness waived in notary’s certificate.)

538 STATE OF OHIO,

County of Hamilton, ss:

I certify that the foregoing deposition of Frank Milward was then

and there reduced to writing by me, in presence of the deponent, in short-

hand, by consent of parties to said cause, who were respectively repre-

sented by counsel at the taking of said deposition ; that it was then and

there agreed in my presence by said counsel that my transcript of said

short-hand notes.might be read in evidence on the trial of ‘said cause

with the same force and effect, to all intents and purposes, as if said

transcript had been signed by said deponent at the time of the taking

of said deposition.

I turther certify that I am not a counsel or attorney for either of the

parties to said cause, and that [I am in no way interested in the event

thereof.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and notarial seal

this second day of May, 1877.

. H. RYDAL,

Notary Public, Hamilton Co., Ohio.

59 EXHIBIT A.—( Referred to in deposition of Gideon Bantz.)

(Correspondence of the Advocate.)

FREDERICK, August 25th, 1849

The tanneries here are very bumerous and extensive, and this place

night with great propriety be termed the *“* tanning depot ” of the State,

as J am informed that there is more leather furnished for the leather

markets from this city than from all the other tanneries in the ‘State

combined. It can boast of nine; in three of them steam is employed as

an agent in their operations. Mr. G. Bantz, sr., Mr. Loats, and Mr.

Gideon Bantz, jr., are the most extensively engaged in this branch of

manufacture. The establishment of the last mentioned individual (Mr.

G. B., jr.) appears to be the best conducted, owing t

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.