# Record and brief — Margaret C. Freeman, Appellant, vs. George Asmus > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Aper_scotus_margaret-c-freeman-appellant-vs-george-asmus_1891_13482%3A0 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Record and brief - **Published:** January 1, 1891 ## Text RECORD, CASE No. 13,482. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. OCTOBER “TEEN, oo I= 1. TERM No., 323. MARGARET C. FREEMAN, APPELLANT, GEORGE ASMUS. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. FILED JANUARY 30, 1889. eee SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER "TERM, 191. TERM No., 323. MARGARET C. FREEMAN, APPELLANT, vs. GEORGE ASMUS. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. INDEX. Original. Print. NTs ceniceigik wiki eticeniisane incanntbinn met Of Compiaint...... ...... .- EEE ERE eee eae Replication aks al Na Evidence for complainant ._...-.--- Testimony of George Asmus Julian Kennedy ._~---. --- George Asmus (recalled) _- SO a |, nea een ne nee D NE alee Exhibit Asmus Sketch No. 1—Drawing of defendant’s North Cornwall furnace... --- No. 2—Drawing of open-front construc- a ae a ~ ~ ~ ee | — — Jupp & DerwkiLer, Prinrers, WasHinaton, D. C., JANUARY 16, 1892. I me oe IT NDEX. Reissue letters patent No. 3204, setters patent No, 209,113, granted Henry C. ¢ KE xX } i} bit I erme of F. W. Lurmann, November 24, 1868 Rane Asmus, assignee mrrittinger Octo- i : +" ] } ‘ Evidence por caerit iin . os o« — = =e oe i gPaety Exhibits offered Text ] ii Henry L. Br : oe ane Comparison of Asmus’ original and reissue patents. -.---------- Reissue letters patent No. 3204. eranted George Asmus, assignee, & : November 24 'Ralite as als aaa il ‘aise — ais setae ha Letters patent N » FO44T. vrat ted I W. L iran [St)7 _. “Exhibit Assignment Assignment of F. W. » th November , Exh rit Reissue File I e-Wwrapper and eontents in the miuat- Li i I - SLC it? ~ } , ‘ i (5% ore Asn | “ — h* , 7 4 ls wa Ys | i . ‘4 | ‘ ? ’ ‘ ‘*, , . *) > ? " “ Exhibit Dunbar Suit -Record from cireuit eco ™? tar ? t \ T iLt's t Vv tis Pe qT) ( A t . ‘Exhibit Merle Patent ’’—French letters peat ‘“ Exhibit Kerl ”’ Extract from Kerl’s Meta iro’ tin-smelting furnace, publish | “~ rz y ’ ‘“ Exhibit Peres -Extract from Perey’s Metallu steel, London, 1864 wee tie ‘ Exhibit Bedson ’—Enelish ‘ George Bedson June 12, 1863 ‘“ Exhibit Dalton ’’—English letters patent No Daniel Dalton May 4, 185: Letters patent No. 1057, granted Isane C Bryant }838 etters patent No. DP as ulv 27. [Bod —. as to **' Suxon dat Freiburg, 1470, granted 1000, granted December oi. Original. 79 Print. 46 49 DO es) Ou rs) wae oD 4 104 105 107 109 110 INDEX. Letters patent No. 38513, granted James F. 1865 Stileman May 12, Exhibit Grettinger Sketch No. 1—Drawing____-_-. 2-2... No. 2—Drawing ; 6: adil atakckomaiie Be a ik a No. 4—Drawing ss ancl ae hes Eas Exhibit Asmus Paper—Extract from the Engineering and Min- ing Journal of February 5, 1876, show- ing paper read by George Asmus before the American Institute of Mining En- gineers at the Cleveland meeting, Oc- Ra Taian eins ties ls Sees Wace aa Argument and submission .... 2... 122466 cccces sses asian pibiaGeld Opinion of Judge Butler- wi ie ii asia adeeb edie caapeaianaeaimmaiaa Interlocutory RNIN os corse se eucachaniel ccieiacieat a mba: ein eas. aceieepieiapias aiditilaladid aa eee Report OEE PR ALLL NE = LOE A OT EY Eee SE Evidence for complainant on the aceounting-.---- pare Jnseapiialedatiadsia Testimony of Thomas 6. Kerr. ~~ - sah kei aes. & Sisteiaie dlepadigemaaeamians iclical meee: Tis FROOCW s «dscns atvenina William J. Moorhead err License from Asmus to The Edgar Thomson Steel Co.. Limited, April 11, IS7Y — i— Recei pted bill of Asmus to The Edgar Thomson Steel Co., Limited, April 10, 1879.......-.-. C—Receipted bill of Asmus to The Edgar Thomson Steel Co., Limited, April 27, 1880 i a a ll eel D—License from Asmus to The Edgar Thomson Steel Co., Limited. March 15. E—Receipted bill of Asmus to The Edgar Thomson Steel eee ee | a ere F—Receipted bill of Asinus to Lucy Furnace Co., March i: a - ‘hsm sane (;—Letter of Asmus to Carnegie, March 14, 188] .._ ~~ H— Letter of Carnegie to Asmus, March 14, 1881 I—Receipt of Asmus to Moorhead, Mav 21, 1880 Exhibit A —— — ——— a 1881. _ MeCleane & Co., Testimony of Walter Kennedy -__- ee Seereneritk SRO TOTO oie a ire ee ccs ces cue Robert C. Porter_____- 7 ‘ seit icaommeaait Evidence for defendant on the accounting ___-_ ___- ae eae ay ean Tee eae OE AU IG se ests tent wie inthe haces lees wins Exhibit Coleman's License—License from Asmus to Coleman, November 3, 1883___-- Po opemT ve zeatimony of Thaney TF. Be cccsisn vena nina sseksnnen sien tiie Asmus, to Arthurand Horace Brock _- Exhibit Brock Letter—Letter of Arthur and Horace Asmus, February 27, 1884... ._-.. ---. Testimony of Richard BON g «1. cacti oi se cess sons sses send , Exhibit Meily License—License from ie th WO ici Complainant’s exceptions to master’s report _-.-----.- ------ ---- ---- frock to Original. 184 187 188 189 190 Tit Print. 114 116 116 116 116 'y escillileg e IV INDEX. Original. Print. Muster’s report on IG a tan orcs cise sinning Weolwinete si wei pariah 2: t>) Western District of Pennsylvania, | Before me, the subseriber, duly authorized to administer oaths, personally came George Asmus, the complainant in the foregoing bill named, who, being duly sworn, deposes and says that so tar as the statements herein contained are within his own knowledge they are true, and as they are derived from the information of others he verily believes them to be true; and he further says that he verily believes the said F. W. Luermann in said_ bill named to be the original, true, and first inventor of the new and useful improvement in blast furnaces which is described in the reissue letters patent granted to deponent and mentioned in the foregoing bill; and, further, that the said deponent verily believes that the title of the said complainant is as set forth in said bill. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 7th day of November, A. D. 1885. [ SEAL. ] W. B. CORWIN, - Notary Public. (Endorsed:) No. 8. April sess., 1884. U. S. circuit court, east- ern district of Penna. In equity. George Asmus versus Margaret C. Freeman. Bill of complaint. Filed March 7, 1884. Samuel Bell, Esq., clerk. Issue subpoena, returnable to the first Monday of April next. Bakewell & Kerr, solicitors for complainant. 9 And afterwards, to wit, on the seventeenth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty- four, the respondent, by her solicitors, William D. Baldwin, Esquire, and Wayne MacVeagh, Esquire, comes into court here and files her answer in the words and figures following, viz: 10 United States Cireuit Court in and for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In Equity. GEORGE ASMUS ) US »No. 8. April Session, 1884. ° MARGARET C. Freemay. | The Answer of Margaret C. Freeman, Defendant, fo the Bill of Complaint of George Asmus, Complainant. This defendant, now and at all times hereafter saving and reserv- MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 5 ing to herselfall and all manner of benefit or advantage of exception or otherwise that can or may be had or taken to the manifold errors, uncertainties, Imperfections, and insufficiencies in the said bill of complaint contained, for answer to said bill or to so much and such parts thereof as this defendant is advised it is necessary for her to make answer unto, answering, says: I. This defendant denies that F. W. Lurmann was the inventor or the true, original, and first inventor of a certain alleged im- 11 provement in blast furnaces, as in said complaint alleged ; she denies that said alleged improvement was new and useful ; and she here, as more particularly hereinafter, denies that the same was not known or used before the supposed invention thereof by said Lurmann, and that it was not for more than two years prior to the date of bis application for patent in public use or on sale in tlre United States both with and without his consent or allowance. If. Upon information and belief this defendant admits that the said F. W. Lurmann obtained letters patent of the United States No. 70447, dated November 5, 1867, for an improvement in blast furnaces alleged to be of his invention ; but she denies that the said F. W. Lurmann was the original and first inventor of the said al- leged invention, and she denies that the said Lurmann made due application therefor, and that he in all respects complied with the conditions of the then existing law of Congress, as in said bill al- leged. Iff. Whether said Lurmann assigned his said alleged invention and letters patent to complainant, as in said bill alleged, this de- fendant is not informed, save by the allegations in that behalf in said bill contained, and, upon information and advice, denies said allegation, and leaves the complainant to make such proof thereof as he may be advised. She admits that complainant surrendered the said letters patent No. 70447 to the Commissioner of Patents and obtained a reissue of said letters patent, which said reissue is numbered 3204 and dated November 24,1868; but she denies that said letters patent No. 70447 were surrendered for good and lawful cause or that said reissued letters patent No. 2204 were obtained or granted in accordance with the law or for the residue of the term thereof, and she further denies that the said reissued letters patent No. 5204 were for the same in- vention which was specified in the said original letters patent 12 No. 70447, but, on the contrary, this defendant avers that said reissued letters patent were obtained on the application of an assignee and without the knowledge or consent of the in- ventor for the purpose of expanding or enlarging the claims thereof so as to cover an invention other and different from that described and claimed in said original letters patent, and that the said re- issued letters patent as allowed and issued were unlawfully and un- warrantably expanded and enlarged and cover inventions other and different from and broader than those described and claimed in said original letters patent, and that said reissued letters patent are there- fore void. IV. This defendant is not informed, save by said bill, whether or at TNT SS ay Nee Ge ae . 6 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. not the complainant has caused the said alleged improvement to be extensively applied to practical use and granted a large number of licenses to use the same, and leave- the complainant to make such proof in that behalfas he may be advised. V. This defendant denies that she is now infringing or hasatany time infringed the said alleged improvement or any part or parts thereof, as in said bill alleged, or that she has done or intended to do anything to disturb the possession, use, and enjoyment of the alleged exclusive privileges secured by the said reissued letters pat- ent and the receipt of the profits of the same, as in said bill alleged. VI. Tiis defendant believes it to be true that complainant brought suit in equity in the United States circuit court for the western dis- trict of Pennsylvania against The Dunbar Furnace Company, Charles Parish, and A. S. Desaulles, but not at the time alleged in sald bill: but this defendant, on information and belief, charges that the said suit or proceeding against The Dunbar Furnace Company and the other defendants was not, in any fair sense, an adversary suit or proceeding, and that the statements in the bill of eom- 13 plaintin the fourth paragraph thereof as to the same are incorrect, misleading, and untrue; that it is true such a suit was commenced an d that some evidence was taken therein on the part of the complainant, bat that there was no proper defence to said sult, no te stimony take Ih On be half of the de ‘fendants, and no @Cross- examination of the complainant, the principal witness in the case: that no service was made upon one of the defendants; that no an- swer was ever filed by hime: that a decree was entered for the com- plainant against all the defendants, notwithstanding such want of service, and the case referred to a master for an account of profits and damages and an injunction ordered to issue, but, so far as these defendants have been able to ascertain, no such writ of injunction was ever granted and no further proceedings were ever had before the master and no final deeree was ever entered in said sutt. This defendant further says that she was not party or privy to said alleged suit, and tnat she is not bound or coneluded by the decision therein. Vil. This defendant denies that she is now constructing or using any blast furnace, In some parts thereof or any part thereof, which is substantially the same in construction and operation as In the said reissued letters patent mentioned, the exclusive right and priv- ileve to make and use whieh and vend the same to others to be used is bv law vested in said e OmMyp lainant. VIEL. This defendant denies that she has violated any rights of the complainant or has made and used or intended to make and. use the aid alleged several Improvements or any or either of them within the eastern district of Pennsylvania or elsewhere, or that she has done or intended to do anything in violation of said re- issued letters patent or of the alle ved CXC lusiv e rigats and privileges of said complainant thereunder or by virtue thereof. 14 IX. This defendant, further sania says that shortly after the above-mentioned decree in the suit of the Dunbar Furnace Co. complainant alleged that this defendant and her asso- MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 7 clates were infringing the said Lurmann patent and called their at- tention to said suit; that they replied, denying said infringement or any intention of infringement, and requested to be informed in what the infringement consisted; that complainant replied, reiter- ating the charge of infringement, bu; without specifying wherein it consisted. Upon their refusal to listen to his demands, without knowing specifically what they were, complainant’s attorney wrote specifying the alleged ground of infringement, referring ! o the Dun- bar suit, and suggesting a settlement; that upon the advice of coun- sel, after full Investigation, they declined to recognize said com- plainant’s alleged rights, and that for more than three years they heard nothing more of complainant’s alleged rights, during all of which time their furnaces were in operation with the full know ledge and acquiescence of said complainant. X. This defendant, further answering, says that the interrogatories contained in the 7th ‘paragraph of the bill of complaint bave all been hereinbefore specifically answered. As an additional answer to the od section thereof, this defendant denies that she has at any time made, used, or sold blast furnaces constructed, in whole or in part, upon the principles and in the manner described in said re- issued letters patent No. 3204, the only furnaces used by her being constructed in substantial accordance with letters patent No. 209,119, granted October 22, 1878, to Henry C. Grittinger, the manager of this defendant’s and her associates’ works at Cornwall, Pennsylvania, with the exception of the omission of the water-cooling pipe in the weight plate and around the slag-discharge opening, the use of such water pipe having been for some time discontinued, this defendant not using any water-cooled arrangement to regulate or control the flow of slag through the furnace. 15 XI. This defend: ant, further answering, upon information and belief denies that the said reissued letters patent No. 3204, dated November 24, 1868, is valid; but, on the contrary, alleges that it is invalid and void for the following reasons, to wit: Ist. Because said reissue application was never assented to, signed, or sworn to by the inventor. 2d. Because it is for an invention different from that claimed in the original patent. od. Because the said reissue contains much new matter interpo- lated by the assignee. 4th. Because the specification of said reissued letters patent is not sufficient to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the alleged invention appertains to make, construct, and use the same with practical success. Sth. Beeause the alleged improvements attempted to be patented in said letters patent did not involve or require invention and did not differ in any patentable respect from what was before said al- leged invention known and used in this country or described in patents and printed publications. 6th. Because there is no patentable combination between the ele- ments constituting the first claim of said reissued letters patent, and because no invention was required to produce the same. MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 7th. Because the specification of said reissued letters patent does not sufficiently describe the method of controlling the discharge of slag from blast furnaces by regulating the temperature of the slag- discharge piece, as claimed in the 7th claim of said reissue, to ena- ble persons skilled in the art or science to which it appertains or with which it is most nearly connected to practice the same; that said method did not involve or require invention and did not dif- fer In any patentable respect from what was before said alleged in- vention known and used in this country or described in patents and printed publications. — 16 Sth. Beeause the 7th claim of the said reissued letters pat- ent No. 5204 is void if construed to cover all methods of con- trolling the discharge of slag from blast furnaces by regulating the temperature of the slag-discharge piece, because it is not for an art, machine, or manufacture or composition of matter or for any im- provement on either. 9th. Because the apparatus or alleged invention deseribed, shown, and contained in said patent is not a patentable invention, but is inoperative and incapable of being applied to practical use without the further exercise of inventive skill or experiment. 10th. Beeause the said F. W. Lurmann was not the original or first inventor or discoverer of the thing patented in said reissued letters patent No. 5204 or of anv substantial or material part thereof, but that long prior to said alleged invention or diseovery by the said Lurmann the thing so patented or a substantial and material part thereof or substantial and material parts thereof claimed as new in said reissued letters patent No. 5204 had been invented or discovered and used in publie by and known — numerous persons whose names and residence and the localities of whose prior use are now unknown to these defendants, but which, when known, these defendants pray leave by proper amendment to Insert in their answer. 17 11. Because the thing patented in and by said reissued let- ters patent No. 3204 ora substantial and material part or substantial and material parts thereof claimed therein as new had long prior to the alleged Invention thereof by said Lurmann been patented or described or contained in letters patent numbered and dated and issued as follows, to wit: | U.S. letters patent No. 1057, granted to I. C. Bryant for blast fur- nace December 31. 1836. U.S. letters patent No. 58513, granted to Stileman & Ellis for cupola furnace May 12, 1868. British letters patent No. 1000, granted to Daniel Dalton for fur- nace dated, May 4, 1855. British letters patent No. 147U, granted tu George Bedson June 12, 1863. French letters patent No. 12855, granted to —— Merle July 27, 1804. 12th. Because the thing patented in and by said reissued let-ers patent No. 3204 or a substantial and material part thereof or sub- stantial and material parts thereof claimed therein as new had long . EOS A ORE eB BE He MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 9 prior to the alleged invention thereof by said Lurmann been fully described, contained, and set forth in the following printed works and publications, to wit: Kerl’s Metallurgy, voi. 1, pages 157, 158, plate II, Fig. 33, the title of which is as follows: “ Handbuch der Metallurgischen Hiitten- kunde zum Gebrauche bei Vorlesungen und zum Selbstsudium. Bearbeitet von Bruno Kerl, Konige, Hannor, Hiittenmeister und Lehrer der Htittenkunde und Probirkunst an der Kénige, Berg- schule zu Clausthal. In drei Binden. Erster Band, mit 7 litogra- phirten Tafeien. Freiberg: Vorlag von J.G. Engelhardt, 1855.” 18 Percy's Metallurgy, pages 354, 356, 357, Figs. 29, 32, 44, the full title of which work is as follows: “ Metallurgy: The Art of Extracting Metals from their Ores and Adapting Them to Various Purposes of Manufacture. By John Percy, M. D., F. R.S., lecturer on metallurgy at the Royal School of Mines. Iron and steel, with illustrations, chiefly from drawings carefully laid down to scale. London: John Murray, Albemarle street, 1864.” Also in sundry other patents and publications, the grantees and names and dates of which are now unknown to this defendant, but which when known this defendant prays leave by proper amend- ment to insert in this answer. 13th. Because in view of the state of the art at the time of the alleged invention by said Lurmann the claims of said reissued letters patent are too broad, covering inventions before made by others and of which he was not and lis assignee is not entitled to the exclusive use and enjoyment. 14th. Because if said Lurmann or his assignee ever had a right to a patent for the alleged improvement specified in reissued letters patent No. 3204 or the right to have the same secured by letters patent he abandoned and forfeited the same and lost all such right by his delay in applying for letters patent therefor, and the same were put into public use and on sale in this country more than two years before his application for a patent thereon. XII. And this defendant, further answering, denies the equity of said complainant's bill as prayed for in said bill of complaint. Without this, that there is any other matter, cause, or thing in said complainant’s said bill of complaint contained material or necessary for this defendant to make answer unto and not herein and hereby well and sufficiently answered, confessed, traversed, avoided, or denied is true to the knowledge or belief of this 19 defendant; all which matters and things this defendant is ready and willing to aver, maintain, and prove as this hon- orable court shall direct, and humbly prays to be hence dismissed with her reasonable costs and charges in this behalf most wrong- fully sustained. MARGARET C. FREEMAN, By her attorney-in-fact, WM. COLEMAN FREEMAN. WM. D. BALDWIN, WAYNE MacVEAGH, Of Counsel, 2—323 cenasiiaiiingin degen an 10 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. Unirep States oF AMERICA, es Eastern District of Pennsylvania, § " William Coleman Freeman, being duly sworn, deposes and says we that he is the attorney-in-fact for the aforesaid defendant, Margaret C. Freeman, and as such more familiar with the facts of this ease than is said defendant; that he has read the foregoing answer by him subseribed, and that the facts set forth 1n said answer are true of his own knowledge except such as are stated on information and belief, and as to those he verily believes them to be true. WM. COLEMAN FREEMAN. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 13th day of May, 1884. L. M. LEIWIG, Justice of the Peace. 20 (Endorsed :) No. 8. April sess., 1884. C. C. U.S., E. D. of Pa. Asmus vs. Freeman. Answer. Filed May 17, 1884. 21 And afterwards, to wit, on the fourteenth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty- four, the complainant, by his solicitors, Messrs. Bakewell and Kerr, comes into court here and files his replication in the words and fig- ures following, viz: Circuit Court of the United States, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. No. 8 of April Session, 1884. GEORGE ASMUS Us. >In Equity. MARGARET C. FREEMAN. The replication of the complainant, George Asmus, to the answer of the defendant, Margaret C. Freeman. This repliant, saving and reserving to himself all and all 22 manner of advantage of exception to the manifold insuffi- ciencies of the said answer, for replication thereto says that he will aver and prove his said bill to be true, certain, and sufficient in the law to be answered unto, and that the said answer of the said defendant is uncertain, insufficient, and untrue; without this, that any other matter or thing whatever in the said answer contained material or effectual in the law to be replied unto, confessed and avoided, traversed and denied, is true; all of which matters and things this repliant is and will be ready to aver and prove as this honorable court shall direct, and humbly prays as in and by his said bill he has already prayed. BAKEWELL & KERR, Solicitors for Complainants. 23 (Endorsed:) No. 8. Aprilsession, 1884. U.S. cireuit court; eastern district of Pennsylvania. Inequity. George Asmus versus Margaret C. Freeman. Replication. Filed June 14, 1884. Bakewell & Kerr, solicitors for complainant. MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 11 24 In the Circuit Court of the United States, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. GEORGE ASMUS VErSUS No.8. April Sessions, 1884. MARGARET C. FREEMAN. - Complainant’s Record. Bakewell & Kerr, counsel for complainant. 25 In the Circuit Court of the United States, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. GEORGE ASMUS VErSUS No. 8. April Sessions, 1884. MARGARET C. FREEMAN. Examination of witnesses and other evidence on behalf of complaia- ant under the 67th rule in equity, as amended, pursuant to agree- ment of counsel, before W. B. Corwin, notary publie and special examiner, by consent of counsel, at the office of Bakewell & Kerr, No. 401 Grant street, Pittsburgh, Pa., beginning on June 27th at 10 o'clock a. m. Present: Thomas B. Kerr, Esq., on part of complainant, and Wil- liam D. Baldwin, Esq., on part of respondent. GEORGE AsMuUs,a witness produced on part of complainant, being duly sworn, deposes and says: Int. 1. State your name, age, residence, and occupation. Ans. George Asmus; age, fifty-four years; residence, New York city; occupation, mining éngineer and metallurgist. Int. 2. Are vou the complainant in this ease and the patentee of reissue letters patent No. 3204, dated November 24th, 1868, for im- provement in blast furnace ? 26 Ans. I am. Int. 3. Are you familiar with the construction of the de- fendant’s furnace in this ease? If so, please describe it. Ans. Tam. The furnace is constructed with an absolutely closed front and the cinder is discharged directly from the hearth through an opening cooled by water. I produce a sketch showing how this is accomplished. The plate A has a prolongation of about twelve inches, reaching through the wall of the hearth towards the inside. This plate is thoroughly cooled by pipes through which water is constantly running. An opening about nine inches wide and ten inches high is left in this plate, through which the cinder is dis- charged. The rear of the dam-plate B is wailed up. Int. 4. Deseribe how the opening through the plate A is closed and how the tapping of cinder is effected. Ans. The opening is filled with clay, and at proper intervals a hole is punched through this clay in order to tap the cinder. Int. 5. In what direction is the opening through the clay made? Ans. Horizontaliy. 12 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. (Sketch referred to by witness offered in evidence as “ Exhibit Asmus Sketch No. 1.) Int. 6. What do you mean by the expression “closed front” used in your third answer? Ans. A blast furnace where the cinder discharge takes place directly from the hearth and not through the medium of a fore hearth, the latter being an outside part of the hearth proper at fur- naces which are technically called open-front farnaces. Int. 7. Please produce a sketch illustrating the construction of an open-front furnace. Ans. The sketch [ produce represents a vertical section, showing hearth A and fore hearth F of a blast furnace working with an open front. A tymp plate, E, often cooled with water, was in use long ago with such furnaces, but the cinder was not tapped directly from the hearth. It was taken out through the fore hearth F, 27 which manipulation caused a great loss of time and great deal of labor. The mode of operation at these open-hearth furnaces is this: The fore hearth F is filled with clay,and when the einder has risen to the level of the tuyeres an opening is made with iron bars ata steep angle through the clay, and the cinder has to rise to the level of the dam D, over which it flows away. A part of the clay which is under the tymp plate E forms an intercepting trap, preventing the blast getting into the fore hearth. This part of the clay, marked in the sketch C, is called the stopper, and, as it 1s eaten away very quickly by the cinder flowing underneath it, it had often to be repaired. E-indicates the iron tap. [nt. 8. You speak about a loss of time in the tapping of cinder in furnaces of the open-front construction. Please state what are the causes of that loss and what its effect is in the production of the furnace. Ans. The loss of time in keeping the fore hearth in repair differs with different furnaces using different material, but on an average it amounts to two to three hours of time out of twenty-four. During the repair the blast has to be taken off, and no iron is made during that time. The hot blast cools off because no gas is produced during that time, and after the blast is let on again colder air as before is blown into the furnace, which aiso decreases the output—not only the output, but at the same time the quality of the iron produced— that is to say, a furnace fitted for working correctly with a certain degree of heat in its blast cannot be disturbed in this respect with- out damaging the product. Int. 9. State what effect, if any, the furnace has on its fuel during the time that its blast is taken off. Ans. There is air passing through the furnace by the open front, burning fuel slowly and doing no smelting, so a loss of fuel is the consequence. Int. 10. You have spoken about a great deal of labor being: re- quired in the working of a furnace with an open front. Please state what that labor is and what causes the necessity for it. Ans, As not only the cinder, but also the iron, is discharged & MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 13 through the fore hearth, it is necessary to keep the same 28 always In such a condition that the iron discharge can be easily accomplished. The fore hearth, being a comparatively cold outside part of the hearth proper, is always filled with half- smolten clay and with half-smolten ore and unconsumed fuel mixed up with iron. This conglomerate of substances, being out of the reach of the blast, has to be removed frequently ; else it will form a tough mass, which cannot be broken into for letting out the iron, and it 1s this cleaning out, which has to be done in most cases every time the Iron is tapped, which causes much loss of time and the very hardest Jabor the furnace men were subjected to. With a closed front all this is done away with entirely. The iron is tapped by a short cut directly from the hearth, and so is the cinder. Int. 11. Please state any advantages that occur to you in the use of the closed front or Luermann system over the prior open-front construction. Ans. There is one advantage in the construction itself. The hearth, having no outside projection, becomes stronger by being held together like a barrel with hoops. The main advantages are in the fact that a closed-front furnace runs all the timne under full pressure, not necessitating any repairs concerning the cinder discharge and not needing hard work done by skilied labor about the front parts, which are the weakest in open-front furnaces, while it is just as strong as any part of the hearth as soon as the closed-front system is adopted. Int. 12. State what, if any, effect it has upon the output of the furnace and upon the amount of fuel used. Ans. The effect as to output and saving of fuel is very different with different furnaces. Whenever a large amount of cinder is made, in consequence of lean ores, the destructive effect of the cinder outflow is greater than where rich ores are smelted. Atan average I find that a saving of at least ten per cent. of fuel and more output of twenty per cent. of iron is effected by changing from the open- hearth: system to that of the closed front. I have known of some instances where the output was doubled by making the change. | 29 Int. 13. Please state what the general construction of the furnaces was prior to the introduction of the Luermann in- vention. Ans. Open frouts. Int. 14. You have spoken about closed-front furnaces. Please state what construction, if any, of cinder-discharge opening is used with such furnaces. Ans. In building the hearth an opening is left in the wall at the proper height, a foot or two below the tuyeres, through which the cinder is tapped directly from the hearth, and this opening is pro- tected by water-cooled castings or water coils from being eaten away or enlarged. Int. 15. What effect, if any, would be produced by the tapping of the cinder in the absence of this provision for protecting the opening? 14 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. Ans. The brick-work of that part of the hearth where the cinder is discharged would be melted away by the cinder flowing through an unprotected opening. Int. 16. State whether or not a closed-breast furnace without such provision for protecting the wall at the cinder opening would be a practically useful and operative furnace. | Ans. Such a furnace would not be practicable for the reasons given before, especially where hot blast, high pressure, and lean ores come together, all tending in their effects to destroy such an unprotected opening. Int. 17. Referring now to the defendant’s furnace as shown by “Exhibit Asmus Sketch No. 1,” please state whether or not the construction is such as to effect the protection of the wall at the cinder outlet which vou have just described. Ans. It is. The cinder outlet C in the sketch is protected from three sides, it being made through the water-cooled plate A. Int. 18. How far does the cooling effect of a water-cooled rasting of the kind used by the defendant at the cinder-discharge opening of her furnace afford an efficient protection to adjacent parts of the wall ? Ans. The cooling effect of water plates, as they are usually made to protect brick-work at the furnaces, is practically to a dis- 30) tance of about six inches. It can be inereased by the use of larger water pipes and higher water pressure if desired. Int. 19. How large is the opening usually made through the clay stopper which is placed in the notch C of furnaces constructed like the defendant’s when it is desired to tap the cinder ? Ans. About an inch. Int. 20. Hlow far from the lower side of the notch is the opening usually made? Ans. About the middle of the noteh. Int. 21. State what, if any, advantages of the closed-breast system are obtained in furnaces constructed like the defendant’s. Ans. Defendant is by the construction she uses enabled to run the furnace without interrupting the blast. There is no fore hearth to be cleaned out, no time lost,and no labor to be performed in order to keep the cinder tap in shape. Int. 22. State whether this invention has gone into use In any furnaces by your licenses; if so, what furnaces. Ans. It has been adopted by a great many furnaces. Forinstance, the following : Charlotte Furnace Coinpany, Scottdale, Pa. Graff, Bennett & Co., Pittsburgh, Pa. ‘ Solo furnaces, - Norton iron works, Ashland, Ky. Shoenberger, Blair & Co., Pennsylvania. Monticello furnace, “ Edgar Hill [ron Co., ” Cambria Iron works, Bethlehem iron works, Pennsylvania steel works, MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. Laughlin & Co., Pennsylvania. Hooven & Sons, - Westerman Iron Co., ° Isabella furnaces, = : Valley Iron Co., ” Siefert, McManus & Co., + Spearman [ron Co., Crane Iron Co., Catasauqua, Pa. Chester rolling mills, Chester, Pa. S. Robbins & Sons, Philadelphia, Pa. Robert H. Coleman, Lebanon, Pa. , Edgar Thompson furnaces (Carnegie Bros.), Bessemer, Pa. Lucy furnaces, Pittsburgh, Pa. Dunbar furnaces, Dunbar, Pa. Longdale Iron Co., Longdale, Va. Low Moor Iron Co., Virginia. Rising Fawn furnace (Walker Coal and Iron Co.), Georgia. Eureka Co., Oxmore, Ala. Belmont furnaces, Wheeling, W. Va. Riverside furnaces, 17 Top Mill furnace, Benwood iron works, Chattanooga iron works, Chattanooga, Tenn. Hoggsett & Co., Favette, Pa. > |S. Bellaire iron & nail works, Bellaire, O. Wheeling Iron Co., Wheeling, W. Va. Junction Iron Co., near Steubenville, O. ée 6 (Sketch of the open-front construction referred to by witness in Int. 7 is now put in evidence as “Complainant’s Exhibit Asmus Sketch No. 2.”) 32 Int. 23. Please state when, where, and under what cir- cumstances you saw the defendant’s furnace and whether you ever made any demand for royalty for the same. Ans. I saw the furnace on May 17th, 1883. It was in blast. It 16 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. was shown to me by the manager, Mr. Grittinger. I told him that I considered this construction as an infringement on my patent, and that the owner would have to take out a license. The furnace is situated near Lebanon, Pa., and is ealled the North Cornwall furnace. (Counsel for complainant offers in evidence an uncertified printed Patent Office copy of the specification of reissue patent No. 3204, granted to complainant on November 24th, 1868, for improvement in blast furnaces, marked “ Exhibit Complainant’s Patent,” certifi- eation of which is waived by counsel for respendent.) (It is hereby stipulated that printed Patent Office copies of U. S. natents and Blue Book copy of British specifications may be used by either party in this case as evidence without certification, sub- ject to correction at any time, by the production of certified copies, if desired.) In answer to a question to that effect by counsel for respondent, counsel for complainant states that infringement of the first and sixth claims of the patent is charged against the defendant. Cross-examlnation ° X Int. 24. Please examine “ Exhibit Sketch No. 1” and your third answer relating thereto. You say defendant’s furnace has an absolutely closed breast, while the sketch shows an apparent open- ing. Please deseribe the construction a little more clearly as to how the space between A and Bb is closed. Ans. The space between A and Bb, as sketched in No. 1, indicates only that amount of distance to show that they are different plates. In fact, the lower edge of plate A is at a level with the upper edge of plate 5, or nearly SO. 33 X Int. 25. Please deseribe briefly the parts represented in that sketch No. 1 with regard to the reference letters marked thereon. Ans. A is an upright plate, cooled by water, with a horizontal prolongation reaching about twelve inches towards the inside of the hearth, and in this plate, cut out of it and the prolongation, is the opening C, through which the cinder is discharged. The cooling water pipes extend through the whole plate A to the upright part and through the horizontal extension. The plate B is a little in front of plate A. The former is in cirele with the outside of the hearth, while the plate A is set in deeper into the furnace, forming a niche apparently made to get nearer to the hearth where tlie einder is fluid. ‘The plate 3 may technically be called a dam-plate here, though the horizontal space between A and B does by no means constitute a fere hearth, the space being walled up and the einder being discharged through the opening C by a_ horizontal thrust and directly from the hearth. D indicates the tapping hole for the Iron. X Int. 26. In “ Exhibit Sketch No.2” you represent an open-front or fore hearth furnace. How far in front of the tymp plate does such a fore hearth usually extend ? MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 17 Ans. From two to four feet, according to the size of the furnace. X Int. 27. As a matter of fact, are not furnaces frequently worked with a fore hearth not greater than ten inches? Ans. There are furnaces which are running that way, but I never saw one before [ introduced the Luermann’s construction in this country. 6 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 41 Ans. It only increases unnecessarily the surfaces exposed to wear and repair. Int. 31. So faras the operation of tapping the cinder is concerned, does it have any effect ? Ans. Itisrather more disadvantageous, on: account of increas- 68 ing the distance from the hearth to the space where the cinder finally escapes to the outside, and would be better if cut off entirely flush with the outside of the water-cooled plate marked C in Luermann’s patent. Int. 32. Look at the model now shown vou and state what it rep- resents. Ans. The model now in my hand represents a blast furnace with closed breast und water-cooled cinder opening, as referred to in Mr. Luermanun’s patent. Int. 33. In what does it differ from Defendant’s “ Exhibit Cinder Flush ”? Ans. The only difference is that in the Defendant’s “ Exhibit Cinder Flush” the water-cooled cinder opening has an extension to the outside of the water-cooled plate called C in Mr. Luermann’s patent. : (Model referred to by witness offered in evidence as Complainant’s “ Defendant’s Exhibit Cinder Tap.”) Adjourned to 2 p. Met at 2 p. m. Int. 54. Is it anywhere saidin the Luermann patent, to which your attention bas been called, that all foreign matters must be re- duced to a liguid ? Ans. There is no such interpretation possible from the specifica- tion; on the contrary, he distinctly states that at times he might remove solid matters through the water-cooled openings, and for the very reason of anticipating such occurrences occasionally pre- fers to make the cinder block movable in order to obtain a larger opening through which to work the furnace and remove any solid matter that occurs in it. Int. 35. In the old open-front furnace was the half-smolten stock which collected in the fore hearth there by intention ? Ans.. It was not. The practice of all smelting operations is to produce everything as cheap as possible, and it is only considered as a nuisance to be avoided as much as possible to get such accumu- lations, but they are more apt to collect in fore-hearth furnaces than in such with closed breast and water-cooled cinder opening, for rea- sons mentioned before. 69 Int. 36. State whether the fore hearth of such furnaces had to be cleaned out when the furnace was in a good working con- dition. Ans. In the best condition of the furnace we generally had to clean it out once at least in twenty-four hours. If only know of one instance in my experience in anthracite furnaces where they got along without cleaning it for about thirty-six hours, and even then ’ ¢) ) b6—o2o 49 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. the amount of cleaning occupied about half an hour; but I also know, in other instances, where it occupied each time about from one and a half to three hours, and had to be cleaned from five to six times in twenty-four hours. Int. 37. Please state what parts of the cinder-discharge opening of a closed-breast furnace require to be water-cooled in order to re- serve the limits of the opening. Ans. More particularly the top, an d, after that, the sides; the former part principally because any wear at this point would en- danger the structure supported by it, inasmuch as, if worn out, the upper part is apt to fall in, and + cause long delays and expense for repairs. Int. 38. Look at the model “ Defendant’s Exhibit Cinder Flush,” in which you will notice there is no water-cooling at the bottom of the cinder opening. Please state whether water-cooling 1s neces- sary at that point to preserve the advantages of a closed-breast fur- nace. Ans. It is not, because if worn out at that point it Is very easily repaired, nothing depending on the part. Cross-examination by Mr. BALDWIN: X Int. 39. How far back does vour knowledge of blast furnaces in this country extend ? Ans. In this country twenty-one years and in Europe eight years prior to that. X Int. 40. In your sixth answer you speak of the ordinary fur- naces having an adjunct consisting of a box. Of what material was this box composed t Ans. In some instances it is nothing but natural stone, in others it is a mass rammed in a powdered state, and still in others 70 fire-bricks; and, again, there are such where they are lined In mt inside with metal plates on the bottom of the tymp. X Int. 41. ‘his so-ealied box inall eases constituted an extension of the ae or body of the furnace with which it communieated by a large opening, did it not? : Ans. By openings of different size, according to the style of the furnace. X Int. 42. What was the usual width of this opening, say in a thirteen-foot furnace ? Ans. Irom twenty-four to thirty inches. X Int. 48. What was its depth ? Ans. That depended on the kind of ore used and the manner in which the furnace was worked. It varied from,say,twenty inches to thirty-six Inches. : X Int. 44. How far did this fore hearth project from the furnace ? Ans. From twenty to thirty-six inches, according to the capacity of the furnace, the fuel and the ores in use. X Int. 45. Was it not the practice to work with much shorter fore hearths than this? Ans. After Mr. Luermann’s invention, a great many tried tocome a + MARGARET C. FREEMAN V8. GEORGE ASMUS. 43 as near as possible to the advantages derived from Mr. Luermann’s invention by shortening more and more the fore hearth. (Answer objected to as irresponsive and volunteered, and question repeated.) I understand that they lately shortened the fore hearths consider- ably. X Int. 46. How short have you known such fore hearths to. be used ? (Objected to as irrelevant, it not being pertinent to any issue in this ease.) Ans. About twelve inches. X Int. 47. Did these short fore hearths retain the tymp? Ans. Yes, sir. X Int. 48. Were those tymps water-cooled prior to 1867? Ans. In very few cases they were. 71 X Int. 49. In your fifth and sixth answers you speak of the Luermann furnace. Do you mean by that description the furnace described in his patent? Ans. Yes, sir. X Int. 50. In your sixth answer you speak of carrying the sur- rounding walis of the hearth directly,clear down to the bottom stone Without any interruption. Did not the hearth of the open furnace extend directly to the bottom stone without any interruption ? Ans. The hearth did, but not the surrounding walls. X Int. 51. Was it not the practice for many years prior to 1867 to tap melted iron directly from the hearth of the furnace ? Ans. In some places they did tap directly from the furnace, but it was iron. X Int. 52. In your seventh answer you say, “In consequence of such slacking or stoppage of the blast combustion is interrupted in the interior of the furnace, whereby a larger part of the furnace be- comes considerably cooled.” Do you mean to say that a stoppage of the blast of the furnace, say for half an hour, would have this effect ? , Ans. The effect will always be shown, and the more the longer the blast is stopped. X Int. 53. In your fourteenth answer you say, in substance, that there are several openings for removing the slag, two of which you describe. Are there any other openings for removing the slag-de- seribed in that patent Ans. There are not. X Int. 54. I find in that patent these words, “ One or more holes are made in the said piece D, through which the slag is discharged.” Did you ever know a furnace worked with more than one slag-dis- charge opening ? | Ans. Oceasion-ly they remove the slag-discharge block, which has one opening, and by its removal a larger opening is left. This is what I mean by two openings, and the cinder then removed out of that large opening. 44 MARGARET C. FREEMAN YS. GEORGE ASMUS. X Int. 55. In your sixteenth answer you say, in substance, that both of there openings are water-cooled by circulation of water through piper in the separate boxes contained in the opening. 72 Please point out in the patent where you find that word “boxes” used. Ans. Not the special term, but the same meaning. It is called here a hollow cinder block and a water-cooled plate. X Int. 56. Please point out in the patent where the word “ cinder block ” occurs. Ans. It does not occur. It is called a slag-discharge piece, the cinder block being the common name by which it is known around the furnaces. X Int. 57. Please point out where the word “ cinder” occurs in the patent, 1f you can find it. Ans. In looking over the patent I observe that instead of the word “cinder” the word “slag” is used in the place of the word cinder mentioned by me, but, technically, both have the same meaning, as far as blast-furnace practice is concerned. X Int. 58. Please point out on the drawings of the patent what vou call these water-cooled boxes. Ans. One of them is marked by letter D, which is the casting con- taining the small opening—the slag-discharge piece—and the other is the water-cooled plate C, containing the larger opening for cinder to pass through. X Int. 59. Does the drawing show any method of water cooling the plate C? Ans. It is not visible on the drawing, but clearly described in the specification. X Int. 60. Is it shown in the drawing as connected with or inde- pendent of the slag-discharge piece ? Ans. It is not shown in the drawing, but so described in the specification. ‘This relates to the water-cooling arrangement. X Int. 61. Now, please point out in the specification where that connection Is deseribed. Ans. I read as follows: “This plate is also cast or made with channels or pipes running through it, and the channels or pipes of such plate and of the piece D may be so arranged as to connect or communicate with each other when the plate C and piece D are in their proper positions, or they may be independent of each other.” X Int. 62. How would you have gone to work in 1867, with 73 the knowledge conveyed to you by that paragraph, to have connected the water channels of those two pieces ? Ans. By screwing two nipples in the plate C connect them to the pipes of the slag-discharge piece D by means of two unions and a T, the exit from the TT to lead to the waste sewer. X Int. 63. Would that have enabled you to remove the slag- discharge piece? . Ans. It would by unscrewing the unions. X Int. 64. What would then become of the water cireulation in the plate C? Ans. One end of the pipe union would be connected to the other Oe Sa MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 45 half union of the water-supply pipe, and the same proceeding carried out with the waste pipe. X Int. 65. Under the circumstances you mention wouldn’t that have been a pretty hot place to work in? Ans. Not much, because you have the block inserted in the discharge piece, which is not removed until after the unions between slag-discharge piece D and the plate C are disconnected and connee- tion made between the latter and the main supply and waste pipe. These connections are in front of the plate C. X Int. 66. In answer sixteen you state, “In either case the limit of the opening is perfeetly preserved by such cooling.” Is it not a fact that any opening through which the slag is being discharged will wear away or cut out in time? Ans. The water cireulating in the slag-discharge piece cools off the cinder passing through that small hole, which naturally will wear out in time, but not as fast by far as if there was no water- cooling. The same is the case with plate C, containing the large discharge opening. X Int. 67. In answer seventeen you say, in substance, that in the large opening the water-cooling circulation exists part way of that opening or may be extended inwards. Where do you find that statement in the patent ? Ans. In the following words: “This plate is also cast or made with channels or pipes running through it.” I don’t find it exactly in those words, but he don’t put any words of limitation. 74 X Int. 68. In your twentieth answer your say, “If the fur- nace is not working properlv—that 1s to say, if by either im- proper quantity or quality of the fluxes, insufficient supply of coal, deficiency of either quantity of heat, of the air blast, or through irregular mode of charging, the cinder begins to ran sluggish, and through such improper mode of operating the furnace any obstrue- tions begin to accumulate in the bearth—in that event the block with the small opening is removed and the cinder or obstructions either worked out of the furnace by tools or by the pressure of blast.” Where do you find that in the patent? Ans. This is embodied in the patent in the words given to explain the object of plate C with the larger opening, which are, “ Or if it is desired to have an opening in the hearth to work through, as when any irregularity in the smelting process has taken place.” X Int. 69. Where is it literally said in the Luermann patent, as stated in your twenty-fourth answer, in substance, that he uses large and small discharge openings ? Ans. It is quoted as follows: “The diminsions of the slag-dis- charge piece are little less than the openings in which it is placed, and the space left around it is filled with sand, which can be readily removed in case it is desired to remove the piece D for repairs or if it is desired to have an opening in the hearth to work through, as when any irregularity in the smelting process has taken place.” In further explanation of this it is evident that if, as he says here, while the furnace works regularly it is preferable to use the slag-dis- charge piece D with the small opening, but if the operation of the 46 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. furnace becomes irregular, then it is advised to throw out the slag- discharge piece D for the time being and work the furnace through the large opening in the water-cooled plate C until the operation of the furnace is corrected. , X Int. 70. In your last answer you speak of a small opening, and vet say in your other answer there is no special size given. Wha do you mean by the term small opening, in view of these state- ments ? Ans. I mean to say that nowhere in the patent any specific 75 dimensions in inches are given; that the two openings, large and small, are only to be understood as relatively so. X Int. 71. Have vou read defendant’s testimony in regard to “Exhibit Cinder Flush ”? Ans. I have. X Int. 72. Point out in Luermann’s patent any water circulation in the dam- plate as exhibited in Complainant’s “ Exhibit Defendant’s Cinder Tap.” Ans. Luermann specifically states that his specifie object is to dispense with dam-plate, as well as with-tymp and fore hearth, close the hearth entirely, and discharge the cinder through a water-cooled opening. There is no dam-plate in the patent. X Int. 78. As I understand it from your deposition, particularly your twenty-fourth answer, you have given this deposition with the understanding that Luermann is still within the limits of his inven- tion whether he discharges liquid slag through a smali opening and a removable cinder biock, cooled by water, or through a larger opening discharges solid matter. Is this correct ? Ans. It is. IGN. HAHN. (H[ere follow diagrams marked pp. 76 & 77.) 79 | Unitep Srates PATENT OFFICE. GrorGE Asmus, of New York, N. Y., assignee of F. W. Lurmann. Improvement in Blast Furnaces. Specification forming part of Letters Patent No. 70447, dated Novem- ber 5, 1867; reissue No. 3204, dated November 24, 1568. To all whom in may concern: Be it known that I. W. Lurmann, of Osnabruck, in the Kingdom of Prussia, invented a new and useful improvement in blast furnaces, and TI, George Asmus, of the city, county, and State of New York, assignee of the said I. W. Lurmann, dd hereby declare the follow- ing to be a full, clear, and exact description thereof, whieh will en- able those skilled in the art to make and use the same, reference being had to the accompanying drawing, forming part of this speci- fication, in which drawing— (Here follows diagram marked page 78.) 16 4 Wg. 3 2 3. Attias 4 vé COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT ASMUS. SKETCH NO. 1. ; A A zB 24/p, (>) || 2 DEFENDANTS NORTH CORNWALL FURNACE. sw ms COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT ASMUS. SKETCH NO. 2. \ CV. F, W. LURMANN. 78 Blast Furnace. No. 3,204. Reissued Nov. 24, 1868. N \X eZ MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 47 Figure 1 is a vertical central section of a furnace built according to this invention. Fig. 2 is a horizontal section through the tuyeres. Fig. 3 is a front elevation of the slag-discharge piece or cinder block detached. Fig. 4 is a vertical section thereof. Similar letters indicate corresponding parts. This invention relates to certain improvements in blast furnaces ‘with a closed breast where the slag is discharged through an open- ing cooled with water in such a manner that the tymp or fore hearth and the wall stone can be dispensed with, and that the slag can be tapped directly from the hearth. It consists, further, in a slag-dis- charge piece or “ cinder block ” of peculiar construciion, as will be hereinafter more fully explained, whereby the building of a furnace according to this invention and its correct operation are materially facilitated. 80 In order to enable those skilled in the art to fully under- stand the object of this invention, I will first point out the disadvantages of blast furnaces with the fore hearth, such as are how in common use for melting iron ore. In such furnaces the slag is driven out by first being forced below the tymp stone, which projects below the level of the tuyeres and intercepts the currents of air and prevents their escape with the slag, which stands in the fore hearth at the same level as on the hearth, the slag being dis- charged only when it rises in the fore hearth high enough to over- flow the top of the wall stone that forms the bottom of the dis- charging orifice. By this arrangement the tymp stone constitutes a trap, which intercepts the currents of air and causes their pressure to be exerted directly on the surface of the slag on thehearth. This method of construction has several disadvantages, one of which is the difficulty of keeping the tymp stone and the surrounding parts in repair, another is that the pressure of the currents of air or wind is limited by the counter-pressure of the column of slag in the fore hearth, and another is that, one side of the furnace being occupied by the fore hearth, no tuyere ean be applied on that side, and con- sequently the supply of wind is irregularly distributed. By the improvement which constitutes the subject-matter of this . present invention these disadvantages are overcome in a simple and effective manner. In the drawings the letter A designates the furnace and B several tuyeres, which are arranged therein at a proper height. The fur- nace is constructed with a closed breast and the sides of the hearth, whether round or square, extend clear down to the bottom stone, the usual opening (sot shown in the drawing) being made in the lower part of the hearth for the discharge of the iron. ‘The open- ings for the tuyeres B are distributed at equal distances apart in the sides of the hearth. At a suitable height from the bottom stone an opening is left in the hearth, in which is placed a cast-iron or brass slag-discharge piece or cinder block, D, which is cast or made with numerous channels or pipes running up and down or In other directions through it, as shown in Figs.3 and 4. The cinder 81 block D may be formed with a dovetail on its upper end, which is fitted into the bottom of a stationary metallic plate, 48 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. C, connected with the furnace, or it may be attached to said plate in any other desirable manner or cast solid with the same, if desired. The plate C is also cast or made with channels or pipes running through it, and the channels or pipes of said plate and of the cinder block D may be so arr: — as to connect or communicate with each other when the plate C and cinder block D are in their proper position, or they may be independent of each other. In the draw- ing the plate C is shown above the cinder block; but it may also be placed below or in any other desirable position in relation to the same. The object of the channels or pipes is to permit the plate C and cinder block D to be cooled by forcing water through them while the furnace is in operation, proper connections being made for that purpose with a reservoir of cold water or with a force- pump. One or more holes are made in the cinder block D, through which the slag is discharged, the shape of said holes being shown in Figs. 3 and 4,the middle portion being cylindrical, but each end being con- ical or flaring. The dimensions of the cinder block are a little less than the opening in which it is placed, and the space left around it is filled with sand, which can be readily removed in case it is de- sired to remove the block D to repair it or if it is desired to have an opening in the hearth to work through, as when any irregularity in the smelting process has taken place. The flow of the cooling water through the cinder block D is regu- lated for the purpose of controlling the disch: arge of the slag through it. By allowing much cooling water to c ‘ireulate through its water channels or pipes the temperature of the block D is lowered suffi- ciently to allow a coating of slag to adhere and choke its discharge openings, which are of fess diameter in the middle than at their ends. By reducing the flow of cooling water the cinder block is al- lowed to retain a higher teinperature, and in consequence the slag is melted out of the disch: arge openings, and they become clear and open and permit the slag to flow without interruption. When the slag in the hearth is below the level of the discharge openings the latter are simply closed by an iron plug. 2 This invention can be easily applied by those skilled in the art to which it belongs to blast furnaces of the common con- struction by removing the fore hearth and closing the aperture left in the breast of the furnace under the tymp stone by inserting the plate C with the cinder block D. The principal advantages derived from this invention are as fol- lows: First, it permits a high pressure of wind ; second, the hearth is preserved in better condition than where the common mode of construction is retained ; third, the labor of the operation of smelt- ing is lessened ; fourth, it allows one more side of the hearth for a tuyere; fifth, it avoids the stoppages of the wind supply, now nee- essary as often as the iron is discharged; sixth, a considerable in- crease is gained in the product of the furnace, while at the same time the cost of labor and repairs is lessened. Having thus described this invention what I claim as new and desire to secure by letters patent is— MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 49 1. A blast furnace with a closed breast where the slag is discharged through an opening or openings cooled by water, substantially as set forth. 2. The slag-discharge piece or cinder block D, constructed and ar- ranged substantially as described. 3. The cinder block D, in combination with the plate C, to which it is attached, substantially as described. 4. The shape of the discharge opening or openings of the cinder block D, being made flaring at its ends and of diminished diameter in the middle or central part, substantially as described. o. The combining of the slag-discharge piecé or cinder block with a series of water channels or pipes, substantially as and for the pur- pose above set forth. : 6. Combining with the metallic plate C aseries of water channels or pipes, substantially as and for the purpose set forth. 7. The method of controlling the discharge of slag from 83 blast furnaces by regulating the temperature of the siag-dls- charge piece or cinder block, substantially as described. This specification signed by me this 24th day of October, 1868. | GEORGE ASMUS. Witnesses : H. HAUFF. ERNEST F. KASTENHUBER. Unitep States PATENT OFFICE. Henry C. Grirtincer, of Cornwall, Pennsylvania. Improvement in Flushing Slag or Cinder from Blast Furnaces. Specification forming part of Letters Patent No. 209,119, dated October 22, 1878; application filed September 16, 1878. To all whom it may concern: Be it known that I, Henry C. Grittinger, of Cornwall, in the eounty of Lebanon and State of Pennsylvania, have invented a new and useful improvement in the method of flushing slag or cinder from blast furnaces in the manufacture of iron, and certain im- provements in apparatus therefor, of which the following is a speci- fitation : | The object of my invention is to flush out or remove froin the furnace at intervals, with the slag and cinder, any infusible or in- soluble material injurious to the iron—such as slate, unburned lime, dirt, &e. Heretofore in the working of commonly used furnaces of ordinary construction it has been customary, in tapping or removing the melted slag and cinder from a blast furnace, to make an 84 opening under the weight plate, if an open-front furnace, or ata place specifically intended for the purpose, if a closed furnace, usually with an iron bar of small size—say about an inch and a quarter in thickness. Such method is objectionable, the aed 2992 50 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. aperture or flushing opening so made being limited in area by the material surrounding it to a few square inches, thus preventing the earrving off with the slag and cinder of the injurious solid matters or infusible material accumulated in the crucible of the furnace. Provision has also been made for flushing by a perforated water block or discharge piece in an opening in the hearth of a furnace, through which to discharge the slag, &c. Moreover, it has been proposed to control the discharge (so as to flush at intervals) by regulating the temperature of the discharge piece, so that Its open- ing might choke up by cooling and the clogging slag be melted by heating. My improvements consist, in the first place, of a novel method, herelnaf{ter dese] ibed. oft flushing or washing out, at intervals, with the slag and cinder, such infusible material or foreign solid sub- 7 | yi tnulate on the melted iron in the crucible of the bia mreby Thecreasineg the \ eld and linproving the quality of the iron; and, in the second place, my lmnprovements consist In cer- tain peculiar organization of parts and in certain combinations of devices whereby the furnace is adapted for carrying out my im- proved method. I employ an attachment or device provided with a large opening and attached to or inserted either in the side or in the fore part of the furnace a little below the level of the tuyeres, said attachment consisting of a tymp or water breast, which may be either separate from or combined with a water block or tuyere, with or without a bottom, or simply a water block or tuyere, the large aperture or flushing opening being closed by means of a door, which is fastened in position by a ratchet and detent, weighted lever, or prop. ‘The tymp, water block, or tuyere may be made of metal or of fire-clay or any refractory material or a combination of these,and be suitably protected, as may be required, by means of a flow of cold water run- ning through it or through a coil of pipe inclosed in or encircling it in suitable well-known ways. The attachment is placed. 85 in position and secured in suitable way, the opening packed and stopped (with wet coal dust and stopping clay), the stop- ping being prevented from blowing out by securing the door. After the blast has been put on the furnace and continued until the cinder has risen above the bottom of the tuyeres the blast is slackened, the door thrown back, and the outside packing of clay removed and an opening made through the coal-dust stopping. The blast, being again thrown on, speedily removes all the stopping, exposing a large flushing outlet, through which the slag, cinder, &c., is carried off. After nearly all the cinder has been flushed out the blast is thrown off and the aperture again closed preparatory to repetitions of the above-described operation at proper intervals. The improvements claimed will hereinafter be desiguated. In the accompanying drawings— (Here follow diagrams marked pp. 88, 89, & 90.) a A NR lI ALE te A A, MBN. iii |S 88 2 Sheets—Sheet 1. H.C. GRITTINGER. , Flushing Slag or Cinder from Blast-Furnaoes. ’ No. 209,119. Patented Oct. 22, 1878. ng 4 | mana Mo. S22. Big £. | Atttmanw 2, ES oa aX CUALIVAMAR f WITMESSES INVENTOR. Z WE — flenry C. Grittinger . —By hie Ailorneys WF Klgine fototurin, Miblara Mig Ao cy . ' ; 83 2 Sheets—Sheet 2 H. C. GRITTINGER. Plushing Slag or Cinder from Blast-Furnaces. No. 209,119. Patented Oct. 22, 1878. ile A 3. Bl cai ¢ ony ‘* i ; | ee B ‘ate P H [ahHe a 7 Y } a NFPA Me LS E¢ LY & 2G ao pee wise an A 7 Wo. 323 4, Aawes, WITNESSES INVENTOR oe Manry C Grittinger uc PF fred By his Attorneys tr § Klgns Gat ture, MGDdwe Higa AR ne mic J J) ' NN ddd ee —= [Us ’ Bos, |i COMP LAINANT’S EXHIBIT KENNEDY 90 AVIP CO. Cpa Asm us vs Freeman and Alden U.S.Cireuit Court Eastern District of Pa daft 1C6-F6 FA CaN OER WO ert my ei tchieeehe tien ah aes Ce od MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 51 which show so much of a blast furnace as is necessary to illustrate my improvements or means for carrving out my method, embodied in the best way now known to me, figure 1 is a front elevation of the furnace with the shaft omitted, that portion downward from or in- cluding and below the boshes only being shown; Fig. 2, a cross- section on the line 2 2 of Fig. 1. Fig. 3 isa view showing in detail the front of the flushing device or attachment, with parts removed ; Fig. 4, a top view of the tymp or water breast; Fig. 5, a section on the line 5 5of Fig.3; Fig. 6, a top view of the weight plate, to which the water block is attached; Fig. 7, a top view of devices shown in Figs. 3 and 5. . Any suitable furnace, A, is provided with tuyeres B of the desired number, and a little below the level of the bottom portions of the tuyeres is provided a flushing opening, C. The top of the opening Y might be on a level with the bottoms of the tuyere openings, or very slightly above, but it is preferably below the level of the tuveres. The device or attachment (considered as a whole) by which the flushing aperture is provided and secured to the furnace is, in the present instance, constructed as follows—that is, made up of a tymp or water breast, D; a water block or tuyere, E, with the large open- ing C; a hinged door, F, to close the opening, connections, or coup- ling attachments (presently to be described) between the dif- 86 ferent parts; a weight plate or bottom, G, for the water block, and water-circulating pipes H and H’ for cooling the parts. The tymp D may be cast in one piece with the water block E and weight plate or bottom piece G or the weight plate with the tymp be cast separately from the waier block, as shown by the dotted lines, Fig. 4. In the preferred construction (shown by the drawings) the weight plate G is secured to the bottom of the water block by means of lugs g g, on the weight plate, to which are jointed bars or upright rods I 1, which are shouldered near the upper ends and pass through openings in the ends of a cross-bar, J, on the top of the water block, and are secured to said cross-bar by keys or wedge-pins e e, passing through the uprights I above the bar. Lugs K K, on the tymp plate or water breast D, serve, in connection with eye-bars or short links L Land the rods I I, to connect the water block and tymp plate. The links are each pivoted at one end to the lugs K and at their opposite ends are shouldered and pass through openings in the rods I and are drawn tight and secured by pins or wedges /, passing through the links in front of the rods. By this construction any part of the device which may be broken or otherwise injured may be removed and renewed without impairing the rest. The door F is secured to a curved hinged arm or bail, M, attached to a pivot or turning rod, N, removably mounted in suitable bear- ing lugs or supports upon the top of the water block. A suitable notched disk or ratchet stop, O, upon one end of the rod N, is acted upon by a detent, P, so as to securely hold the door when closed, but any other suitable securing device may be employed. The operation is as follows: Before putting the blast on the fur- nace the aperture or opening is closed first with wet coal dust prop- O2 MARGARET C, FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. ASMU GEORGE ASMUS No. 8. V8. A April Session, 1884. MarGAReEtT C. FREEMAN. ; , 1854 Examination of witnesses and other evidence on behalf of defend- ant under the 67th rule in equity, as amended, pursuant to the annexed agreement of counsel and notice hereto attached, before Howard ©. Shirk, special examiner, at his office, corner 9th and Willow streets, Lebanon, Pa., beginning February 11th, 1885, at 10 o'clock a. m. Present: Thomas S. Kerr, Esq., on part of complainant, and Wm. D. Baldwin, Esq., on part of respondent. - ’ Counsel for respondent offers in evidence the following exhibits, respectively marked as hereinafter mentioned, to wit: Certified copies of the following documents: | 1. Assignment from F. W. Lurmann to George Asmus dated July 12, 1867, recorded September 16, 1867, marked “ Exhibit Assign- ment.” 2. Letters patent 70477, granted IF. W. Lurmann for improve- ment in blast furnaces November 5, 1867, marked “ Exhibit Lur- mann Patent.” | 3. File contents and drawing of the application for the reissue of the aforesaid letters patent No. 70477, reissued to George 93 Asmus, assignee of said Lurmann, November 24, 1868 marked “ Exhibit Reissue File.’’* 4. Docket entries and extracts from the record of the suit of George Asmus vs. Dunbar Furnace Company et al., No. 215, November term, 1877, in the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Pennsylvania, marked “ Exhibit Dunbar Suit.” The following are the parts offered in evidence under this heading: Ist. Docket entry. 2d. The bill. 3d. The subpcena and endorsements thereon. 4th. The answer. 5th. The replication. 6th. The motion to close testimony and order thereon. 7th. Notice of complainant’s testimony. Sth. Extracts from the record, being the parts relating to the testimony of George Asmus comprised in the following pages of the certified copy of the Dunbar suit, to wit: Page 22; the paragraph lines 24 to 32, both inclusive; page 33, and lines 20 to 26, both inclusive, page 49 thereof. 9th. Order for decree and endorsements thereon. 10th. Decree and endorsements thereon. * For reissue specification see ‘‘ Exhibit Complainant’s Patent,’’ complainant’s record. 54 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 11th. Clerk’s certificate. 5. Drawing and translation of Merle’s French letters patent 20368, for improvements in blast furnaces, granted July 27, 1854, marked “ Exhibit Merle Patent.” 6. United States letters patent No. 1057, granted Isaac C. Bryant December 31, 1838, for improvements in the furnace for manufact- uring iron, marked “ Exhibit Bryant Patent.” 94 7. United States letters patent No. 38513, granted to Stile- man and Ellis for improvements in melting and smelting furnace May 12, 1863, marked ‘Exhibit Stileman & Ellis Patent.” 8. Translation from the text, page 158, vol. I, of Kerl’s Metallurgy, and tracing of figure 33, sheet 2, in the matter of the same, “Saxon Fire Smelting Furnace,” published at Freiburg, 1855, marked “ Ex- hibit Kerl.” ‘ 9. Description of hearth for blast furnaces and tracing of figures 32, 44, 47, 49, and lower portion of figure 29, in the matter of the same, from Percy’s Metallurgy, [ron and Steel, London, 1864, marked “Exhibit Perey.” (It is stipulated between counsel that typewriter copies of the text of the above-mentioned exhibits, certified by the examiner, may be substituted for the originals, which are to be produced when called for.) Defendant also offers in evidence the following models: 10. A model illustrating the construction of the lower portion of the defendant’s furnace at North Cornwall, marked “ Exhibit Fur- nace.” 11. A model of the open frort of said furnace as originally used, marked “ Exhibit Open Front.” 12. A model of the same with Grittinger’s cinder-flushing attach- ment, marked “ Exhibit Grittinger.” 5. A sectional model of an old open-hearth furnace, marked “Exhibit Open Hearth.” 14. A sectional model illustrating the construction of the flushing arrangement of defendant’s furnace, marked “ Exhibit Cinder Flush.” 15. A similar illustrative model of Lurmann’s slag-discharge ap- paratus, marked “ Exhibit Lurmann.” Henry C. Grittinger. Henry C. GRITTINGER, a witness produced on the part of the re- spondent, being duly sworn, deposes and says: QJ. 1. State your name, age, residence, and occupation. 99 A. My name is Henry C. Grittinger ; aged forty-two years ; residence, Cornwall, Pa.; occupation, blast furnace manager. Q. 2. What is your present oceupation—that is, by whom are you at present employed ? ° A. I am employed by Margaret C. Freeman aad R. W. Coleman’s heirs. I have charge of North Cornwall furnace and the two Bird Coleman furnaces, all located at Cornwall, Pa. Q. 3. How long have you been so engaged ? > + > MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 55 A. Since 1871 at North Cornwall and since 1882 at Bird Cole- man. Q. 4. Describe the construction of the cinder-flushing devices used in these three furnaces. A. I can best do this by reference to certain sketches made by me and which I now produce. (Sketches offered in evidence respectively marked Exhibits Grit- tinger 1, 2, 3, and 4.) The one marked No. 1 shows the first method, used from 1875 to 1878. This was the first year the furnace started—that is, the North Cornwall furnace. The No. 1 Bird Coleman furnace was started in the spring of 1876 and the other, No. 2 Bird Coleman, in 1880. The sketch No. 1 shows an open fore hearth with a removable weight plate and prop. It has a water-cooled dam, side cheeks, and tymp. In working a furnace with this fore hearth the weight plate was raised from six to eight inches above the level of top of dam, as shown In the sketch. Theslag or cinder was tapped through an opening between two pigs placed between the top of dam and the weight plate. The moulten iron was tapped out through an open- ing in dam and dam-stone, as shown in sketch. It was customary to remove the weight plate and prop every morning after tapping out the iron for the purpose of taking up or breaking the crust that formed under the weight plate; a clay stopper was then packed under the tymp; the object of the stopper—which seldom 96 exceeded six inches in depth below the tymp—was to reduce the level of the moulten slag in the main hearth, and at the same time protect the tymp from being cut away by the movlten slag and blast coming in contact with it. The weight plate was then put in place again on a level with top of dam, the pigs having been taken away. 7 After the blast having been on the furnace for several hours the weight plate was again removed, the pigs replaced on the top of dam, and the moulten cinder was forced up to a level with top of pig by a pressure of blast in the furnace. Clay and coal dirt were forced down between side cheeks and moulten slag to make it more easily removed, and the weight plate and prop were again — hour longer the slag was tapped through a small aperture put into posi- tion. After blowing the furnace about an hour longer the slag was tapped between the pigs, the aperture being usually about one inch in diameter. The weight plate was about two feet and a fialf square, being the distance between the tymp and the dam and the side cheeks on either side. The cinder was allowed to run through the opening between the pigs until the blast blew through. The open- ing was then stopped up with clay. After running on a short time longer the weight plate and prop were again removed for the pur- pose of working the furnace. The working of the furnace consisted in the removal of the effete or dead matter that accumulated in the fore hearth by forcing the same upward with a light-blast pressure and then shovelling it off, | | 56 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. It was also necessary at times to loosen the material by means of wringers and crust bars, which were inserted in the fore hearth. It frequently happened that the slag and effete material in the fore hearth became chilled up and could be removed only with difficulty. In such cases we were compelled tou abandon the working of the furnace in the manner above described and remove the slag through the opening marked “cinder notch” on sketch No. 2 until the U7 fore hearth, by the operation of the furnace, became hot enough to undermine the crust and melt the effete matter and make the crust removable. We frequently ran for weeks with the fore hearth in this chilled condition. We found that we were able to control with difficulty the sides of the cinder notch, owing to the blast and slag enlarging it to too great a size. Wethereupon intro- duced a regular tuyere to tap the cinder through, but found that it did not answer the purpose, because the coils were cut in a very short time. We then tried a large cast-iron pipe lined with clay with better success, but experienced difficulty in keeping the slag from chilling up at the lower end. We then tried a cast-iron block lined with fire-brick with indifferent success. We then had a new tymp made with semicircular opening, as shown in sketches Nos.3 and 4, No.3 beingin vertical longitudinal section and No. 4 being a front view; also attached to same a cast- iron cinder block lined with fire-briek, as shown in said sketches. We also placed a cast-iron weight plate under the cinder block for the purpose of keeping it in place. The first bottom piece on plate and cinder block had coils of pipe through them for the purpose of protecting’ the material of which they were constructed, but after several trials the water-cooling pipe in same were abandoned, as the sudden expansion that was caused by the flow or slag through the same and the chilling after effect of the circulating water caused the same to crack in a very short time and render them useless. We, however, continued using circulating pipe in both the tymp and the dam, which are the only water-cooled appliances we are using In connection with our cinder-flashing arrangement, and this is done merely to protect the materials of which they are com- posed. | This description applies more particularly to the North Cornwall furnace, owned by Margaret C. Freeman, but was used as No. 1 Bird Coleman, furnace until 1882. This furnace was then rebuilt, and a modified form of tymp, side cheeks, and cinder notch were used. 98 No. 2 Bird Coleman furnace, built in 1880, has the same modified arrangements. Q. 5. [now show you the model “ Exhibit Cinder Flush.” What does it represent? : A. This represents a vertical sectional view of the arrangement in use at North Cornwall furnace. The No. 1 Bird Coleman furnace, prior to its being rebuilt, three years ago, was,so faras the cinder-flushing arrangement is concerned, like this model. When it was rebuilt it was like the model, except there was no dam under cinder notch MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 57 and the side cheeks were smaller. The No.2 Bird Coleman furnace was the same. Q. 6. Did you or not ever use practically during the running of the furnaces referred to in the last question water to cool anything other than the tymp and the dam? A. Nothing connected with the cinder-flushing arrangement. Q. 7. Please describe the operation of the furnaces we have re- ferred to, so far as the flushing of cinder is concerned ? A. In the use of cinder notches of my construction [ have returned to the general idea of the old open-hearth furnace, in that I do not dissolve the effete matter and pass it out as a liquid with the slag, but I discharge the effete or dead matter in the solid form, blowing it out in the solid form with the slag. Thus, when I wish to flush cinder from any of the furnaces, I first slack the blast, then open the door closing the cinder bloek, remove the clay stopping and part of the coal dust that has been packed under the tymp; the blast is then put onto the furnace and a hole pricked through the remaining coal dirt, which soon enlarges to the full size of the opening of the cinder block and allows full egress for the slag and solid material that is washed out with it. After the cinder has been all Hushed out the blast is thrown off the furnace and the tapping hole or cinder notch is closed up with coal dirt rammed under the tymp 99 and an outside stopper of clay is rammed in and the door closed and fastened on same. The blast is then put on the furnace and the smelting operation then resumed. Q. 8. Please state the size in cross-section of the cinder openings that you are using. A. The opening in casting is fourteen by fourteen inches. This we reduce generally to an opening ten by ten inches by a clay packe ing or lining. In certain conditions of the furnace we reduce the opening to an area of about fifty square inches. ‘This is done by packing in clay. Whentheslag is very hot and fluid we reduce the size of opening to the smallest size above named, and where it is thick and sluggish we open to full size cinder notch, fourteen by fourteen inches, by taking out all clay. Q. 9. You speak of reCucing the area of the cinder notch. Have you or not ever been able to effect such reduction by circulating water in tymp and dain, and thus causing the slag to adhere to the inside of the cinder notch ? A. We never could, but experienced in first using water coils in our cinder block that instead of the water protecting the cast iron of which the cinder block was made and causing the slag to adhere to same the iron was soon cut away and the coils were cut and be- gan leaking. Q. 10. How long did such experimental use of the water in the cinder block continue? A. Only a few weeks, as we found the renewal of the blocks cooled with water to be too expensive. Q. 11. Then the furnaces were never run practically with water at any other parts of the cinder- flushing arrangement than is shown in white on “ Exhibit Cinder Flush”? S—o23 58 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. A. No, sir; they were not. Q. 12. Have vou ever formed the portion of the tunnel or cinder block in front of the tymp of any material other than cast iron? A. We have frequently formed it of fire-brick, using 100 ~=two sixteen-inch blocks on each side of the opening and cov- ering the same with block. Such devices have lasted six months fully, and we are now using such a structure at No. 1 Bird Coleman furnace. Q. 13. The complainant, in his 23d answer, states that you showed him the furnace at North Cornwall May 17th, 1883, and put in Asmus sketch No. 1 as a representation of the cinder-flushing ar- rangement of that furnace at that time. Examine that sketch now shown you and state whether it correctly represents the construction of that furnace at that time. A. It does not represent the construction at that time. @. 14. State in what particulars it is incorrect. A. He has the projection of the base of tymp into the furnace as being twelve inches long, whereas it is but six, and he does not show the cinder block attached to outside of tyimp, nor the bottom plate under the cinder block, sor the method of closing the opening in said cinder block by means of a door attached toa curved bail. “ Exhibit Grittinger ” is a correct representation of the arrangement there and now used. @. 15. The complainant in the suit of Asmus vs. Alden also testified in relation to.the Bird Coleman furnaces and produced a sketch of them, likewise marked “Asmus sketch No. 1,” which I now show you. State whether that isa correct representation of the construc- tion of those furnaces at that time; and, if not, in what respect it is incorrect. A. It is not correct, the dam and iron notch being located at the fore part of furnace and the cinder-flushing device to one side. The cinder-flushing device is composed of a water-cooled tymp and side sheets, and the cinder block is made with fire-brick, as hereinbefore described by me. @. 16. In his third answer Mr. Asmus states that in the Bird Coleman furnaces “ the opening in plate C is filled with loam 101 = orcelay, and the small hole is punched through the filling whenever the cinder is to be tapped.” Is that a correct de- scription of the operation of that device? A. It is not. I have described the correct operation before. (Defendant’s counsel offers in evidence British letters patent No. 1000, granted to Daniel Dalton, for furnaces, dated May 4, 1855, sealed November 38, 1855, marked “ Exhibit Dalton.”) (Also British patent No. 1470, granted to George Bedson, for cu- polas and blast furnaces, dated June 12, 1863, sealed December 4, 1863, marked “ Exhibit Bedson.’) , MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 59 LEBANON, Pa., February 12, 1885. Met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment. Present: Same counsel as before. Henry C. GRITTENGER was cross-examined as follows: X Q. 17. In your 4th answer you say, “ We then tried a cast-iron pipe lined with clay.” Was that pipe water-cooled ? A. No. , X Q. 18. In the same answer you say, “ We then tried a cast-iron block lined with fire-brick.” Was that block water-cooled ? A. It was not. X Q. 19. What is the size of the solid matters which come out - with the slag in your furnaces? A. It varies from one cubic inch up to fifty cubic inches and va- ried from one to five inches in diameter. X Q. 20. What was the modified arrangement that you have mentioned at the end of answer four? A. It consisted in moving the cinder notch around to one side clear on the dam, which latter remains at the fore part of the furnace as heretofore. The cinder notch is composed of a water-cooled tymp and side cheeks and a cinder passage formed by a block or 102 ~—s tunnel extending out from thetymp. The tunnel in front of the tymp is made of an ordinary casting, separate from the tymp and removable; it is not water-cooled, and frequently when it was burned out fire-bricks at the side and top were substituted for it. X Q. 21. In your answer No. 7, describing the operation of flush- ing cinder at defendant’s furnaces, you say: “ When I wished to flush cinder from any of the furnaces I first slack the blast.” Please state how long the blast remained slackened for that stop of the flushing operation. A. It was only for a long enough time to remove the clay stopper and put a splasher plate in front of the cinder notch to prevent the slag from flying over the easting-house. The slackening of the blast is not necessary for the flushing operation, but it is essential for the safety of the men. We use 9 to 10 pounds of blast pressure, and have sometimes over a 10-inch opening. The blast is slackened for one-half to a minute; the whele flushing operation takes about 2 or 3 minutes, whereas with a small] opening it would take fully 15 minutes. The two to three minutes includes the whole operation up to the closing of the door and putting on the blast. If the fur- nace is working cold it will take longer. I have known it to take five minutes. but this is exceptional. X Q. 22. How often do you flush cinder in 24 hours ? A. Nine times. We cast every eight hours and flush three times between each casting operation. X Q. 23. You tap your metal directly from the crucible of the furnace through the wall, do you not? A. Yes, sir. . X Q. 24. In the old or open-front form of farnace, the operation 60 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. of which you have described, the stopper extending down from the tymp acted as a trap between the hearth and fore hearth, did it not? A. No, sir; the tymp was above the level of the dam and it could not act as a trap. 103 X Q. 25. I mean did it not prevent the blast from passing out Pcie the fore hearth when the weight plate was re- moved until the cinder fell below the lower end of the stopper? It did; but the object of the clay stopper in our practice was not to form a trap but to protect the tymp and to reduce the level of the slag. Redirect (). 26. Please look at “ Defendant’s Exhibit Model Open Hearth” and state if water-cooled tymps, such as are there shown, were or not known and used before the year 1865. They were. HENRY C. GRITTINGER. David Campbell. DAvip CAMPBELL, a witness produced on the part of the respond- ent, being duly sworn, deposes and says: (). 1. State your name, age, residence, and oocupation. A. My name is David Campbell. I am fifty-two vears of age; my residence is Reading, Pa. Iam the superintendent of Henry Clay furnace. Q. 2. How much experience have you had in running blast fur- naces ? A. I have been at furnacing sinee 1858. ©. 3. Please look at Grittinger Sketch No. 1 and state whether or not that is a fair representation of what is commonly known as an open-front furnace. A. Yes, sir. (). 4. Please look at section model now shown you, “ Exhibit Open Hearth,’ and state whether it is or is not a fair representation of an old furnace having an open hearth. A. It Is. Q. 5. For how long have you been acquainted with such style of furnaces ? 104 A. I have been acquainted with such furnaces since 1858. Q. 6. Please state the dimensions, if vou ean, of the hole through which the cinder was tapped in such furnaces. A. It would vary, and you cannot confine yourself to one size. We would start with an inch hole and it would get to be a five-inch hole. Q. 7. Please state whether the weight plate was in the position shown by the dr: awing and model when einder was tapped. A. Yes, sir; the plate would be the same. ) .§ Q. 8. When the weight plate was removed to work the furnace, MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 61 was it or not the fact that it was customary to draw the cinder before the removal of the weight plate? A. We always tapped the cinder first and removed the weight plate afterwards. Q. 9. Have you ever seen before 1865 a furnace with what is commonly known as a chilled fore hearth ? A. Yes,sir; I have seen many. Q. 10. Please give an example. A. At Middletown, at James Wood & Co.’s furnace, we had the fore hearth chilled as much as it was opened. @. 11. Please look at Grittinger Sketch No. 2 and state whether or not that is a fair representation of a furnace with a chilled fore hearth such as you have referred to. A. Yes. @.12. When a furnace was in this condition, with its fore hearth chilled, how was the cinder removed? Please state, if you know. A. We usually drilled through until we got into the furnace, either at the front or some other point. Q. 13. How big a hole did you usually thus drill? A. We would usually start with a two-ineh driil. If the chilled material was too hard we would finish the work with a smaller drill. Q. 14. During the period that the fore hearth of the furnace was chilled could you or not remove any foreign material through the fore hearth ? 105 A. We could remove anything that could come out through the small slag hole. Q. 15. State, if you know, what happened or what became of the foreign material that could not be removed through the slag hole. A. It was melted and consumed in the furnace. The foreign material would melt and come out with the slag. Q. 16. Then, as I understand you, if the fore hearth was chilled and the foreign material was being consumed in the furnace you would continue tlie operation of the furnace under these conditions until the fore hearth was againopen. Am [I right? A. Yes, sir; unless some other thing happened to the furnace to stop it. | Q. 17. Do I understand that you are referring to your experience before 1865 or after ? A. This was before 1865. This was the old way. Q. 18. You arestill operating furnaces, I think ? A. Yes, sir. Q. 19. What furnaces ? A. The Henry Clay furnaces, Reading, Pa. Q. 20. How are these furnaces constructed ? \. They have the old open front—about the same as the model “Exhibit Open Hearth.” (). 21. Are the fore hearths chilled or not in such furnaces ? A. I have one chilled and one open. I don’t bother much about it, ». 62 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. Q. 22. Do you or not operate these furnaces for long periods with the fore hearths chiiled ? A. Yes, sir; I do. (). 23. Please state for what period of time you have operated them with fore hearths chilled. A. I have had them chilled for six weeks to two months. Q. 24. What difference, if any, is there in your products when working In these two ways? A. I find no difference in the products. In my experience, there is no difference in either way. 106 Q). 25. Can you state whether any other expedients than drilling through the fore hearth were resorted to before 1865 for getting rid of the slag ina furnace the breast of which was closed ? A. We tapped cinder through, beneath, and between the tuyeres. This — before 1865. Q. 26. Can you state where you so tapped cinder through the tuyeres ? A. At James Wood & Co.’s, Middletown. (). 27. How often did you do that? A. frequently. Q. 28. Were these tuveres water-cooled or not ? A. Yes; at the time we used the shell tuyeres. Q. 29. How long would you thus discharge cinder through a tuyere? A. Every hour, say, for twenty-four hours at a time. Sometimes as long as a week. Q. 30. What. was the practice before 1865 as to water-cooling the various parts of the furnace ? A. We cooled the front or dam, the tvmp, and sides with water running through. (. 31. Hlow was the flow of cooling water controlled ? A. By stop-cocks on pipes. (). 32. What was the object of cooling the parts? A. To preserve the tymp, dam, and sides. (Counsel for the complainant objects to so much of the foregoing testimony as relates to the tapping of cinder through tuveres at the furnace of James Wood & Co., at Middletown, as inadmissible under the answer, no notice of the same having been contained therein.) ‘6 ; ? » . 4 . 9 (Also to “ Defendant’s Model Exhibit Open Hearth,” as not a cor- rect representation of an open-front furnace as constructed prior to 1867.) Cross-examination (reserving objections): X Q. 35. Where did you ever know of a furnace constructed 107 like * Defendant’s Exbibit Open Front?” Lrefer particularly to the position of the tymp, stopper, and dam-plate, the length of the stopper, and the relative heights of the top of the dam-plate and the lower end of the tymp. A. LT have known furnaces having the lower end of the tymp from four to six inches above the top of the dam. I have known MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 63 them as high as ten inches. It was of very little account as long as we kept it high enough. ‘The stopping would be put in about level with the dam. Sometimes it would wear off and at others it would gather. When it wore off we would have to renew it. X Q. 34. What is the horizontal piece, painted red, which stand- between the weight plate and the dam in the “ Model Exhibit Open Hearth” designed to represent ? A. It represents clay. X Q. 35. In tapping cinder in those furnaces with which you had experience, did you have to raise the cinder ? A. If we tapped above the cinder the blast would raise it out. X Q. 36. Please describe how you tapped the cinder in the open- front furnaces like “ Exhibit Open Hearth” with which you had experience prior to 1867. A. We cut a hole with a chisel bar through the clay that was be- tween the weight plate and the dam as horizontally as we could. Sometimes it would be inclined a little. X Q. 57. Was it inclined enough to go below the tapper on the lower end of the tymp? A. It would have to come below the stopper. X Q. 38. Where did you tap cinder in that way prior to 1867 ? A. At James Woods & Co., at Middletown. X Q. 39. Was the metal tap in that furnace through the dam- plate and fore hearth ? A. Yes, sir. X Q. 40. Did you ever have any difficulty in tapping metal on account of the chilling of the fore hearth ? A. Yes, sir. 108 X Q. 41. What did you do then? A. We resorted to the different ways of getting the iron out. We used steel bars and drills to drill through the chilled stuff on the fore hearth. We also used sulphur and salt and lead to soften things. X Q. 42. How long did it usually take to get the iron out under these circumstances ? A. It would vary from fifteen minutes to half a day. X Q. 43. What was the furnace doing in the meantime ? A. The furnace would be working regularly along. ‘The blast would be on. X Q. 44. How often did the fore hearth chiil up? A. It would be a matter of frequent occurrence; put it about half the time. X Q. 45. How long did it take to clean it out, and how often did you do it? A. We would work from an hour to au hour and a half. If this did not open it we would leave it alone and let it open itself; this would take twenty-four hours or more. X Q. 46. Did you, during any of these operations, slacken or shut off the blasts? A. Very frequently we would stop; we would slack the blast usually. 64 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. X Q. 47. About how long a time in twenty-four hours would the blast be slackened ? A. Three to five times in twenty-four hours; each time from thirty minutes to an hour. X Q. 48. About how long a time in twenty-four hours would the blast be stopped ? A. It might possibly be in twenty-four hours one hour; not more. DAVID CAMPBELL. Edgar S. Cooke. EpGar 8. Cooke, a witness produced on part of the respondent, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 109 (). 1. State your name, age, place of residence, and occupa- tion. A. My name is Edgar 8S. Cooke; I am thirty-three vears old; I reside at Pottstown, Pa.; [am manager of the Warwick [ron Com- pany. Q. 2. What experience, if any, have you had in blast-furnace practice ? A. I have been acquainted with blast furnaces since 1868 and I have been a manager since 1875. 7 (). 3. Are you accustomed to open-hearth furnaces ? A. Yes, sir. Q. 4. Will you please state, if you know, how such furnaces are operated as regards the slag discharge and the discharge of foreign matter through the fore hearth ? A. We discharge the cinder by drilling a hole through the clay underneath the crust or weight plate at an inclination reaching to the stopper under the tymp. The cinder was discharged by a press- ure of blast through the opening thus made. As drilled, the hole would be from an inch to two inehes in diameter, but by the cor- rosive action of the flowing slag and the blast this hole would soon be enlarged to four to five inches in diameter, oftentimes thus per- mitting the liquid slag to carry out mechanically any impure ma- terial, such as slate and bone of coal, that might lie in the crucible of furnace. When the cinder was removed to the level of the bot- tom of the stepper the blast was slackened and the hole or passage was Well stopped with clay and driven back towards the tymp as far as possible, when the blast was put on again and the operation of smelting went on as usual. Q. 5. Are you acquainted with furnaces now in operation using what is known as the Lurmann or Asmus invention ? , Yes, sir. Q. 6. Do you know how in such furnaces the bone and slate are disposed of ? | 110 A. They are fused and form part of the liquid slag and pass out as liquid slag. Unless theslagging piece is removed they must be passed out as liquid. If the slagging piece is removed at the cost of time and labor the refuse matter can be removed me- chanically through the larger opening thus made. f ‘ t MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 65 Q. 7. Had you had sufficient experience in blast furnaces, their running and management, to state as to the relative advantages re- sulting from the different methods of operation in use ? A. Yes. q. 8. I understand from your testimony that there are two known and practiced methods of operating blast furnaces—one consists in discharging mechanically with the slag through a large hole the bone and slate and other unfused materials, while the other method consists 1n discharging the slag through a small orifice and allow- ing the bone and slate toremain in the furnace until fused with the slag and then discharging the slag and such fused material as a liquid. What I want to know is which of these two methods do you consider the best, the most practical, and the most economical ? A. This would depend entirely on circumstances, as to the char- acter and quality of fuel used, and also to the quality of the ores smelted. With anthracite coal as a fuel and with the average quality as received at the Schuylkill Valley furnaces, I would prefer the former method, especially so if sulphurous ores are also used. With coke of fair quality and ores comparatively free of sulphur, I would prefer the latter method. With anthracite coal there is usually a considerable portion of slate and bone. A _ portion of this reaches the hearth or crucible of furnaces, passes below the tuyeres, and not only obstructs the hearth, produces no heat, but rather absorbs it. The process of converting this into slag is a slow one and interferes by its presence with the driving and rapid melt- ing of the furnace. By removing it mechanically by means 111 ~=of the liquid slag washing it out through a large opening it is the more quickly removed, giving room for fresh fuel. As it may be thus removed at every flushing, it keeps the hearth freer of such matter than if it was allowed to fall and pass off as liquid slag. With coke there isa less proportion of slate,and the pieces are quite small instead of being large as in the case of anthracite coal, and far more quickly on this account combined with the flux and con- verted into slag, and this interferes but slightly with the drawing or melting of the furnace. I might state that I have known instances where the small Lurmann slagging block has been removed in an- thracite furnaces for the reasons given. Q.9. Are you acquainted with the mechanism used by the defendant herein ? | A. I visited the furnaces of the defendant in 1880, and I then became acquainted with their mechanism and methods. Q. 10. I now show you a model, “ Exhibit Furnace,” and I direct your attention to the portion of the model, “ Exhibit Grittinger,” I now hand you and ask you what it is. | A. To the best of my knowledge, it represents the front of the North Cornwall furnace. (. 11. Please state, referring to the two methods of operating blast furnaces about which you spoke in previous answer, which of those two methods was practiced by the defendants at the North Cornwall furnace. A. It is practically the first method—the washing-out method. I—323 66 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. @. 12. I now show you a model showing a section of the devices now used by the defendant, in which model the water channels are shown in white, and | ask you whether or not such water circulation would have any effect whatsoever upon the flowing stream of molten slag and unfused impurities. (“ Exhibit Cinder Flush ” shown witness.) A. In my opinion, the water would have no effect whatever upon the flowing of the slag. 112 (). 138. Please state what you consider the device used by the defendant to be. A. It is a modification of the open-hearth furnace, as they retain the tymp, side cheeks, and dam, the fore hearth being filled with brick instead of infusible clay or part clay and part brick, the method of discharging the slag through an opening large enough to admit the passage of large pieces of slate, bone, or unfused lime- stone resembling the method employed in the open-front furnace previously described more than the method of discharging the slag through the Lurmann patent. Q. 14. You have referred to the Lurmann patent. Are you ac- quainted with the Asmus reissue No. 3204? A. I have read it. Q@. 15. | read you the following statement therefrom: “The flow of the cooling water through the “einder block D is regulated for the purpose of controlling the discharge of the slag through it. By allowing much cooling water to circulate through its water chan- nels or pipes the temperature of the block D is lowered sufliciently to allow a coating of slag to adhere and choke its discharge open- ings, which are of less diameter in the middle than at their ends, By reducing the flow of cooling water the cinder block is allowed to retain a higher temperature, and in consequence the slag is melted out of the discharge openings and they become clear and open and permit the slag to flow without interruption.” I want to know whether or not such an action is possible with the defendant’s structure, as you understand it. | A. No; decidedly no. Q. 16. Do you find in the defendant’s struciure any cinder block having the capacities of the one referred to in the quotation in iny last question ? A. Assuming that “ Exhibit Grittinger defendant’s structure, | would say no. 9? correctly represents the Cross-examination by Mr. Kerr: (The counsel for complainant objects to the above depo- 113. sition as Incompetent in so far as it purports to define the Lurmann invention and what constitutes the use of the same. ) X Q. 17. In your answer to interrogatory 12 do you refer to the sane matter that is contained in the quotation in question 15, viz., the chilling effect of the water upon the molten slag passing through the cinder notch ? MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 67 A. By “effect” in my answer to the question I mean that the water circulation as shown by the model would not chill the slag, so as to affect the rapidity of its flow. | X Q. 18. Please state whether or not the Warwick Iron Company is a defendant in suit by this complainant for an infringement of this patent. A. Yes, sir. EDGAR S. COOK. LEBANON, February 12, 1885. P. L. Weimer. Deposition of P. L. Weimer, taken on the part of defendant. The witness P. L. Wetmer, being duly sworn, in answer to ques- tions propounded by W. D. BALDWIN says as follows: Q. 1. What is your name, age, residence, and occupation ? A. My name is P. L. Weimer; my age is 55 years; my residence is Lebanon, Pa., and I am by occupation a manufacturer of blast- furnace machinery. Q. 2. For how long have you been practically familiar with the operation of blast furnaces? | A. I have given special attention to the operation of blast fur- naces since 1856. Q. 3. Are you familiar with the working of a blast furnace}smelt- ing ores ? | A. Iam, and have been for 29 years. Q. 4. Will you briefly explain the process, particularly that part which relates to the formation of cinder? 114 A. In the manufacture of pig-iron the raw material, iron ores, fuel, and necessary fluxing material, generally lime- stone, are charged into the top of the furnace in fixed proportions, This material, in its descent through the furnace, is acted on by the ascending blast. The iron ore, in its conversion into metallic iron, throws off its gangue, which gangue unites with the flushing mate- rial and ashes of the fuel, forming a liquid slag or cinder, which passes the tuyeres into the crucible, from whence it is removed in Various wavs. Q. 5. Is there any other material passing into the crucible of the furnace except this slag ? A. Yes: fuel, molten iron, and solid foreign matter obtained from the ores, flux, and fuel that has not liquified. Q. 6. In what manner is the liquid cinder removed from the cru- cible of the furnace ? A. The older practice is to draw it off at stated intervals through an aperture made through a clay stopping In the hearth of the fur- nace. Mr. Lurmann has a patented device for drawing the liquid cinder either in a constant flowing stream or at intervals. Mr. Grit- tinger also has a patented device for drawing away voth the liquid cinder and foreign solid material at stated intervals, | i : | 68 MARGARET C. FREEMAN YS. GEORGE ASMUS. Q. 7. Are you familiar with Mr. Lurmann’s device for drawing away cinder? If so, please describe it. A. Mr. Lurmann’s device consists of a hollow metallic block with an aperture through its centre, through which the liquid cinder is drawn while water is allowed to circulate through the block. Q. 8. Where is this water-cooled block of Mr. ‘Lurmann located in the furnace ? A. Immediately under the tymp and as near the interior wall of . the crucible as possible. Q.9. What is the size of the aperture in Mr. Lurmann’s device ? A. The aperture through which the cinder flows varies in size from one inch to two or two and one-half inches in diameter. 115 Q. 10. Are you familiar with Mr. H. C. Grittinger’s device for drawing cinder from a blast furnace? If so, please de- scribe it. A. Mr. Grittinger’s device consists of a horseshoe-shaped opening made in the tymp of the furnace, in front of which is placed a heavy casting of a shape to correspond with the horseshoe opening in the tymp. This coating is almost twenty inches in length, and has an aperture of the area of one hundred square inches. It is provided with an iron gate or stopper for closing the aperture when not in action. When sufficient cinder has accumulated in the cru- cible of the furnace Mr. Grittinger suddenly opens this large aper- ture of 100 square inches and allows the cinder to flow out with violence, carrying with it the solid foreign material that has passed tuyeres. As some iron ores throw off large quantities of this solid matter, Mr. Grittinger’s device allows it to flow away with the liquid cinder and avoids it accumulating in the bottom to be more slowly dissolved and pass away, as with Mr. Lurmann’s device, or being shovelled off at stated intervals, in accordance with the older prac- tice. Q. 11. Is it practical to accomplish the removal of solid matter, such as Mr. Grittenger flows away with his 100 square — area of opening, through Mr. Lurmann’s device? A. No. By the Lurmann process it must remain and dissolve in the liquid cinder before it can pass through the small aperture he provides. Q. 12. Where does Mr. Grittinger’s mode of removing the cinder and foreign material differ from the older furnace practice of doing this work ? A. In the older practice the cinder was drawn at stated intervals through a comparatively small orifice, similar in size to that now employed by Mr. Lurmann, while at fixed times the opening was greatly enlarged so as to admit of a large shovel being introduced, by means of which the foreign material was removed. Mr. Grittin- ger’s differs from the fact that his opening is sufficient to 116 remove all foreign matter along with the cinder, and the violence of flow in such a large aperture is sufficient to ac- complish all that was performed with the old practice of shovelling Q. 13. What is the fore hearth of a furnace? MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. 69 A. The fore hearth is a passage that leads from the outside of the furnace into the crucible, and from which, in ordinary practice, the cinder and iron is drawn. Q. 14. Does Mr. Lurmann use a fore hearth ? A. No. He draws both iron and cinder direct from the crucible of the furnace; his dam is directly under his tymp. | Q. 15. Does Mr. Grittinger’s cinder-drawing device and iron tap draw their stock away from a fore hearth ? A. The cinder device is placed outside of the tymp and dam suf- ficiently far back to accommodate the cinder device, both of which arrangements demand a fore hearth. No cross-examination. P. L. WEIMER. LEBANON, February 11, 1885. Counsel present: Mr. T. B. Kerr, for complainant, and Mr. Wil- liam D. Baldwin, for defendant. Henry L. Breevort. Henry L. BrReEEvort, a witness produced on the part of the de- fendant, having been duly sworn, deposes and says: Q.1. What is your name, age, residence, and occupation ? A. My name is Henry L. Breevort; I am 36 years of age; I live in Brooklyn, N. Y., and am by profession a mechanical engineer. Q. 2. What experience have you had in the practice of your pro- fession, and have you ever been called upon to testify as an expert in suits relating to patents, and what knowledge have you of the subject-matter of this suit? . A. When a boy of seventeen I entered a machine shop, 117. + where I acquired a general knowledge of mechanical opera- tions and structures. After this I owned and operated for some years a small machine shop of my own. When I gave up this I was employed principally in designing machinery and in making tests of engines and other machines. About ten years ago I began to be frequently called upon to testify as an expert in suits relating to patents and patented devices, and since then almost my entire time has been thus occupied. I have been called upon to testify in upwards of three hundred cases. Iam familiar with the subject- matter to which this ease relates, and have seen a number of blast furnaces in operation. Q.3. Have you examined and do you understand that which is shown and described in the original letters patent No. 70447, granted November 5, 1867, to F. W. Lurmann for improvement in blast furnaces, a printed copy of which is now shown you ? A. Yes; I have examined the patent referred to in the question and I understand what is there shown and described. Q. 4. Have you examined and do you understand what is shown, described, and claimed in the reissue of the said patent granted to George Asmus, No. 3204, dated November 24, 1878, the said Asmus 70 MARGARET C. FREEMAN VS. GEORGE ASMUS. being the assignee of F. W. Lurmann, a printed copy of which reissue Is now shown you? A. Yes; I have examined the said reissue No. 3204, being, as I understand it, the complainant’s patent in this case,and understand what is there shown, described, and claimed. Q. 5. State whether you have read the testimony taken up to the present time in this case. A. I have. (). 6. State what you understand to be the mechanism described and the operation of said mechanism as you understand it from ex- amining Lurmann’s original patent,and I call your attention specially to the first claim of the said patent. 118 A. Lurmann’s original patent No. 70447 relates to an im- provement in blast furnaces. The improvement, as I under- stand it, consists in discharging the slag or cinder and any impuri- ties which may pass below the tuyeres as a liquid through what Lurmann ealls “a slag-discharge piece.” This consists of a block of metal having a small hole in it, through which the liquid slag and other melted impurities are to be constantly drawn from the interior of the furnace. ‘This block, however, would not last long or be serviceable were it merely a piece of iron with a hole in it. So Lurmann’s invention went further than this, and he describes that the block is to be cooled with water and so cooled that by passing water through the cavities of the block in large quantities the block can be so chilled that the cinder will be checked in its flow outward, and that in this way the amount of liquid material discharged can be reguiated by regulating the quantity of water used in connection with the block. ‘The block is also to be removable, so that a large opening may be readily obtained from the outside to the inside of the furnace. These are the capacitie [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Aper_scotus_margaret-c-freeman-appellant-vs-george-asmus_1891_13482%3A0. Public record. Not legal advice.