f 
 
 ./^ 
 
HoUinger Corp. 
 pH8.5 
 
'^Mf*"- . ■ A 
 
 S^50 
 
 T ^ 
 
 TS 850 
 .16 
 
 'Copy 1 ^?;* 
 
 ^n t)H( m^iUx a( t\u '^mMmtm 
 
 OF 
 
 JJ^c6lB A^. COl^^OV^ElIl, 
 
 FOR 
 
 AN EXTENSION 
 
 OF HIS 
 
 LIBTTEI^S IPJLTEItTT 
 
 FOR 
 
 ««^awe««*HSv^c7^ 
 
 Wood. Splitting Machineh, 
 
 1^ 
 
 X 
 
 Dated May 15, 1855. 
 
 t^EW YORK 
 National Printing Companyf 35 Cliamliers Street. 
 
 1876. 
 
 :^^^- 
 
<t 
 
 <> 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^5^ 
 
 //^/v^va 
 
In the matter of the applica- 
 tion of Jacob A. Conovek 
 for an extension of Letter 
 Patent, for a maeliine for 
 splitting wood, dated and 
 issued, May 15th, 1855, and 
 re-issued July 13th, 1875. 
 
 L'Sf 
 
 V 
 I 
 
 \ 
 
 State, City and County of Neiv York, ss. : 
 
 The petitioner, Jacob A. Oonover, being duly sworu, 
 says that he has re-examined his evidence given on 
 his original ap])lication for an extension of said let- 
 ters i^atent, which evidence is now on file in the 
 Patent Office of the United States, and that the 
 following is a true copy of his direct evidence, and is 
 true. 
 
 " My name is Jacob A. Conover. I am the appli- 
 " cant in this matter. I am 53 years of age, and 
 " reside at 803 Greenwich street, New York City. I 
 " have examined the press copy account marked 
 " Exhibit A ; M. B. Andrus, Notary, &c., and it con- 
 " taius all the moneys received on account of the 
 " patent which I have any record of, and which 1 
 " think contains the whole I have received. It also 
 " contains all the moneys spent or paid out on 
 " account of the patent which I have any record of. 
 " Some of these expenses are estimated, and very 
 " small sums paid out are not included in this state- 
 " ment ; there was no record made of them which I 
 " can find. I found, when I first commenced intro- 
 " dncing the products of my machine, that the public 
 " were very much prejudiced against buying wood in 
 " that shape ; and I had to employ persons to solicit 
 " custom for the sale of the products. I did not sue- 
 
" ceed very well iiutil after I had exhibited one of my 
 
 5 "machines in the full of 1855, at the Fair of the 
 " American Institute, held at the Crystal Pahice. I 
 " advertised in newspapers and yot np circulars, 
 "both the i)roducts and the sale of rijihts to use the 
 " machine. As soon as the sale of the products of 
 "the machine became a success, I fcmnd opposition 
 "by parties infringing, and soon it became to such 
 "an extent, that I had to commence suits against 
 "them. The first suit, I tliink, was coninienced in 
 "March, 185G; and I have been almost constantly 
 
 6 " up to the present time involved in law suits under 
 " this patent for infringements of it. I know com- 
 " bination of jtarties infringing tlie patent to contest 
 " the suits. When I first commenced fo furnisli 
 " kindling-wood, cut and split, there were lu) parlies 
 " to my knowledge, that nuule it a business. Pre 
 " vious to that time, wood was sold in tiiis city to 
 " consumers in cord-wood stick, by the cart-load ; and 
 " in all cases where the consumers liad the wood 
 " sawed and split, it was done at their doors or in the 
 
 7 " cellar. Previous to that, also, there were large 
 " quantities of charcoal used for kindling puri)o.ses ; 
 " and amongst the i)oorer classes charcoal was used 
 "for cooking purposes in liof weather. Since Uie 
 " introduction of kindling-wood it has in a great meas- 
 " ure superseded the use of charcoal for kindling pur- 
 " poses, and by the poorer classes, for cooking jturposes. 
 "Previously, charcoal was kept by the grocers for 
 "sale, and i)eildle(l along the streets by charcoal ped- 
 "dlers. In the place of which, now, kindling-wood 
 
 g "is kej)! by the grocers and peddled along the 
 "streets. I have estimaled the value of this inven- 
 " tion at ten thousand dollars per annum. I nnide 
 " my estinuite and calculations from the proceeds and 
 "value that I have ascertained since the decision 
 "rendered in my favor of Judge Shiiunan." 
 And depouent further says, that the detailed state- 
 
ment of receipts and disbursements, appended to "his 
 said original application and evidence, was truly and 9 
 correctly set forth therein, and that his net receipts 
 from said invention, for the tu-st term of 14 years, 
 was only $8,662.55, as fully appeared by said state- 
 ment. 
 
 And deponent further says that the detailed state- 
 ment, hereto annexed, is a just, true and correct ac- 
 count of his receipts from said patent, and expendi- 
 tures and value of his services in and about the same 
 as near as he is able to give the same, and that his 
 actual net income from the same, from the time of 10 
 said extension up to this date, does not exceed the 
 sum of $15,017.93. 
 
 And deponent further says that as soon as his in- 
 vention began to be successful a variety of other 
 machines were introduced embracing the substantial 
 features of said invention, and the number of such 
 machines continued to increase imtil deponent was 
 not only prevented from increasing the revenue from 
 his invention, but was obliged to compromise with 
 most of his licensees, and take a less sum than origin- 11 
 ally agreed upon. 
 
 And_depoiient further says that he has been obliged 
 '*-^^,o comiueucelSverVttractions against infringers, and 
 although he has thus far succeeded in every case 
 where a final hearing has been had, he has not been 
 able to recover any considerable amount, except in 
 the actions against John H. Eapp and Dohrmann & 
 Peipho, all of which is included in his statement of 
 receipts on his former application for extension ; the 
 decree against Henry Mevs, for $2,500.08 is now in the ] 2 
 Supreme Court on ai»p3al, involving only the question 
 of the amount, and the decree against Kohn & 
 Kemmelstiel for $5,663.53 remains unpaid, and the 
 collection of the full amount doubtful. 
 
 And deponent further says, that upon the trial ot 
 the several actions referred to in his affidavit in his 
 
action against D. A. Greene, hereto annexed, and 
 
 13 shortly after tlie extension, it was discovered that the 
 claims in his letters patent did not cover all his in- 
 vention, and that several important features had 
 been omitted by inadvertence or mistake ; and de- 
 ponent consulted his counsel A^'itll the view of hav- 
 ing the same immediately amended and re-issued. 
 That at the time of such discovery he had actions 
 pending against Henry Mevs, and Josei)h Kohn, and 
 Samuel Kemmelstiel, in both of which he had ex- 
 pended large sums, and in both of which lie was 
 
 14 advised and had every reason to believe he would 
 recover a large amount of money, a portion of which 
 would be for the use of machines during the original 
 term of his patent, in which his brother and former 
 copartner, D. B. Conover, was interested with him, 
 and which acticms were expected to be speedily ter- 
 minated. And he was advised by his coimsel that if 
 he surrendered his original patent and re-issned the 
 said patent before final judgment in said actions, he 
 would lose not only all the money he had expended 
 
 15 therein, but the several sums which he was entitled 
 to recover. 
 
 And deponent further says that the parties to 
 said actions resorted to every possible device to pro- 
 tract and delay said actions, so that a final decree in 
 the last of said actions was not entered until the 3d 
 day of March, 1875. And his application for the 
 amendment and re-issue was i)reseuted as soon there- 
 after as the same could be prepared. 
 
 And dei)onent further says that although he soon 
 
 16 learned from actual experience in the use of his in- 
 vention, that there was a great saving of labor there- 
 by, and that its use would result in furnishing to the 
 public better, more convenient, and cheaper kindling 
 materials than had previously been su])plied, he 
 placed the license fee for the use of each machine at 
 one dollar per day for each day on which it was 
 
5 
 
 used, and oflfered it to r.ll persons '\ilio desired to gO 
 into the business, at that low rate. 1 7 
 
 And deponent further says, that as soon as his said 
 invention became a success, various devices were re- 
 sorted to to deprive him of his just riglits, and as 
 fast as he recovered against or enjoined one machine, 
 anotlier would be produced. That a large number of 
 infringers sprung up and organized a combination of 
 wood dealers to defend each other, and deponent was 
 obliged to combat such combination alone, and ex- 
 pend a large amount of money and time in prose- 
 cutions, and he verily believes that during the en- 18 
 tire period of his extension, ninety-hundredths of 
 the kindling-wood used in the Cities of New York, 
 Brooklyn, and Jersey City, was split by machines 
 embracing one or more of the material and essential 
 features of his invention, and there are now in use in 
 said three cities alone at least 75 of such machines, 
 for which deponent does not and has not received 
 any compensation whatever; but on the contrary, 
 nearly all the owners thereof, as he is informed and 
 believes, are acting in concert with the combinations 19 
 hereinbefore referred to against him. 
 
 And deponent further says, that about the time of 
 the- extension of his said patent by the Commissioner 
 of Patents, a number of the persons holding license 
 from him in the City of ]^ew York, held a meeting, 
 and on consultation together offered deponent $20,000 
 for his rights under said extension for the City of 
 New York ; that deponent believing the same to be 
 worth more, declined to accept such offer, but finally 
 offered to take $25,000 therefor, and failing to agree 20 
 upon the terms, the matter was dropped. 
 
 JACOB A. CONOVEE. 
 
 Sworn to before me, this 1st day ) 
 of February, 1876. 3 
 
 J. Cooper Lane, 
 
 Notary Fublic, N. Y. Co. , 
 
6 
 
 Collected the following aiiionnts from 
 
 21 aiitl others, mostly iu monthly payments. 
 May 15th, 1869, and Jannary 25th, 187<). 
 Charles J. Sparks, for nse of one machine, 
 Jonas Sparks, " " " 
 Henry Weaver, " " " 
 Thomas Harrison, " " " 
 
 N. B. Cottrell, " " " 
 
 Molhman & Weliage, " " " 
 
 Eengerman & Wehage, " " 
 
 Kanth, Helderbrandt & Co., '- " 
 
 22 Kanth, & Veshlege Bros, " " 
 Hinken & Gereshen, " " " 
 Finken & Son, " " " 
 Dohrmann & Piepo, " " " 
 R. Martin & Son, " " " 
 F. H. Lammers, " " " 
 Geo. Sirmer, " " " 
 Schnltz & Hnnken, " " " 
 Andrew A. Waters, " " " 
 James Jones, " " " 
 
 23 Nicholas Joost, " " " 
 E. M. Clark & Co., " " 
 Clark & Wilkins, " " " 
 
 (Now two, and infringing.) 
 Jacob Edler, for nse of one " 
 
 Seth C. Williams, " " " 
 
 H. A. Schmok, " " " 
 
 Jnlius C. Leihman, " " " 
 
 Patrick H. Dnfly & Sons, " " 
 
 Tooker & Jrwin for nse of one, and 
 
 24 compromises for the use of three, in- 
 fringing 
 
 John H. Heisman for use of two now 
 
 three machines 
 
 Walter Palmer, for use of two machines 
 C. W. Alcott & Co., for use of three now 
 
 six machines 
 
 * 
 
 licenc( 
 
 ies 
 
 between 
 
 $113 00 
 
 50 
 
 00 
 
 (JO 
 
 00 
 
 18!) 
 
 00 
 
 1,111 
 
 70 
 
 840 
 
 00 
 
 552 
 
 00 
 
 0(>9 
 
 00 
 
 210 
 
 00 
 
 2(;(i 
 
 00 
 
 1,083 
 
 00 
 
 1,374 
 
 00 
 
 19(1 
 
 00 
 
 939 
 
 00 
 
 771 
 
 50 
 
 1,3()2 
 
 00 
 
 685 
 
 00 
 
 637 
 
 50 
 
 834 
 
 50 
 
 45 
 
 00 
 
 830 
 
 00 
 
 232 
 
 00 
 
 237 
 
 00 
 
 35 
 
 00 
 
 38 
 
 00 
 
 934 
 
 00 
 
 837 00 
 
 2,090 00 
 1,735 00 
 
 3,750 00 
 
7 
 
 Dicks & Sod, for use of one machine. . $341 00 
 
 Ryan & McGliu, " " " " IfiO 00 25 
 
 Frederick Bnse, " " "now two... 1,10!) 00 
 
 Win. Muler & Father, for use of one . . . 225 00 
 
 Earl Bros., for use of one machine 100 00 
 
 Philip Lang, " " " " 15 00 
 
 Charles Brandt, for use of same 50 00 
 
 Isaac Dahman, " " " one 10 00 
 
 Vog-el & Erbers, " " " same -. 25 00 
 
 Henry Mehley, " " " " 33 50 
 
 John Hummel & Co. for use of same. . 40 00 
 
 Edgar Lay, for use of one machine. . . 35 00 2G 
 
 John S. Gilmore, " " " 215 00 
 
 Henry Draught, " " " 175 00 
 
 Thomas L. Peck, compromise for three, 
 
 infringing 210 00 
 
 Luther Bros., compromise for one ma- 
 chine - - - - 
 
 A. J. DeBaun, Brooklyn, for use of one 
 
 machine 
 
 Henry Waterman, for use of one Ma- 
 chine - 
 
 Frith Brothers, compromise for infring- 
 ing machines 
 
 Eobert Keeler, compromise for infring- 
 ing machine 
 
 Jersey City and Hohokeu. 
 John Kamenia, compromise for infrinj 
 
 '& 
 
 ing machine. 
 
 Eobert Donsha, 
 
 Herman Farendroff, for use of one ma- 
 chine 
 
 Ingleson & Davis, for use of one ma- 
 chine 
 
 AV. V. Phillips, Providence, R. I 
 
 SO 
 
 32 
 
 
 500 
 
 00 
 
 
 147 
 
 CO 
 
 27 
 
 200 
 
 00 
 
 
 75 
 
 00 
 
 
 175 
 
 00 
 
 
 1,000 
 
 00 
 
 
 334 00 
 
 28 
 
 425 
 
 00 
 
 
 GOO 
 
 00 
 
 
 $29,252 02 
 
8 
 
 PAID 
 
 29 Cost ill oettiiig my patent extended 
 
 by the Commissioner of Patents in 
 1869, in taking testimony, counsel's 
 fees, i)rintiiig, and otlier necessary ex- 
 penses, including Patent Office fee. . $1,927.84 
 
 Charles M. Keller, Counsel, Feb. 4, 1872 890.00 
 
 Peter Van Antwerp, Counsel 3,421.25 
 
 E. M. Stilwell, U. S. Commissioner 55.00 
 
 Osborn " " " 40.00 
 
 Kenneth G. White, Master U. S. Circuit Court 800.00 
 
 30 Ke-issued Patent 100.00 
 
 31 
 
 $7,234.09 
 Personal services rendered in collecting, 
 prosecuting infringers, t)htaining wit- 
 nesses, serving ])apers, and traveling 
 expenses, estimated at $ 1 ,000 per year. $ 7,000.00 
 
 Total Eeceipts _ . . . $29,252.02 
 
 Total Expenses $14,2.34.09 
 
 $14,234.09 
 
 Net amount realized $15,017.93 
 
 .TACOB A. CONOVER. 
 
 Stall', Citji (111(1 Cotinlji of Niir York, ss.: 
 
 Peter Van Antwerp, being duly sworn, s.ays : I am 
 an Attorney ami Counsellor-at-Law, and do business 
 in the City of New Ycn-k. I have been the Attorney 
 and .Solicitor and one of the counsel for the above 
 32 named Jacob A. Conover, ever since the granting to 
 him of the Letters Patent above referred to, and have 
 had charge of the business and suits in relation 
 thereto. That almost immediately after said Con- 
 over x)iit his machine in operation, his patent began 
 to be infringed upon ; that deponent brought the first 
 suit at law in the Circuit Com-t of the United States 
 
for the Soutliern District of ISTew York, on the 13th 
 day of May, 1856 ; that said suit was tried before 33 
 Houorable Judge Hall, of the Northern District of 
 New Yorli, then holding said Circuit, and a jiuy, at 
 tie October Term of said Court, 1856 ; and said Con- 
 over failed to obtain a verdict, the jury, as dei^onent 
 was informed by one of their number, standing eleven 
 in his favor against one for the defendant; and said 
 Conover, in consequence of his inability to pursue an 
 expensive litigation, was compelled to compromise 
 with the parties at a great disadvantage. And de- 
 ponent further says that afterwards, and on the 28th 34 
 day of September, 1858, he commenced another suit 
 at law against John H. Eapp in said Circuit Court, 
 for infringing said patent; that said action was tried 
 on the 4th day of November, 1858, before the Honor- 
 able Judge Ingersoll, of the District of Connecticut, 
 then holding said Court, and a jiuy, and a verdict 
 was obtained in favor ot the plantilf; that a motion 
 for a new trial was made by the defendant, and the 
 same was heard by the Honorable S. Nelson, a Jus- 
 tice of the Supreme Court, of the United. States, and 35 
 said motion was denied. : 
 
 And deponent fiu'ther says, that in the mouth of 
 August, 1864, a suit was commenced in said Circuit 
 Court against John H. Peipho, and John H. Dohr- 
 mann, in equity; that said suit Avas tried before the 
 Honorable W. D. Shipnian, a Judge of the District of 
 Connecticut, holding said Circuit, who rendered a judg- 
 ment thereon against said defendants, on the 28th day 
 of March, 1868. And deponent further says that since 
 said last mentioned action he has been obliged to com- 3(5 
 mence over twenty-five other actions against other in- 
 fringers ; that motions for injunctions haA^e been made 
 before his honor S.Blatchford, the Judge for the South- 
 ern District of New York, on two of the additional ac- 
 tions, which motions were contested and decided in 
 favor of said Conover, and that others are now pend- 
 
10 
 
 ing; and that there arc, as heis informed and believes, 
 
 37 at least 75 other infringing njachiues in tlie Cities of 
 N. York, Brooklyn, and Jersey City alone, and a num- 
 ber of others in other places. That during the trial 
 of the several contested cases, there were jint in evi- 
 dence against said patent, over 30 different machines 
 and letters patent, as having been used or patented 
 in the United States or patented or <lescril)ed in jiub ■ 
 lication in England, previous to said patent, and the 
 ablest counsel in the country were employed in the 
 defences; among them George Gitford, Levi S. 
 
 38 Chattield, Amos K. Hadley, K W. Stonglilon, Horace 
 Andrews, and W. P. X. Fitzgerald, of New York, and 
 J. H. B. Latrobe, and I. N. Steele, of Baltimore, and a 
 large luiniber of witnesses and mechanical experts 
 examined and that in all such trials except the one 
 above referred to, where there was a disagreement of 
 the jury, said patent was sustainecl. 
 
 And deponent further says h(^ lias been engaged 
 in upwards of a hundred pateni cases, many of (hem 
 severely contested, but none that lie recollects wliicli 
 
 39 ecpialed the ettbrts to defeat the claims under said 
 Conover's i)atent, nor any where from the beginning 
 to the end of the several controversies, there were 
 such persistent and successtul efforts to delay and 
 protract the proceedings, that in conse(|U('nce thereof 
 deponent has been obliged to attend before the Court 
 and its examiners and masters over 300 times, and 
 said ('onover has been obliged to attend at least two 
 hundred and titty times. That deponent was informed 
 by a number of the wot>d dealers and infringers, and 
 
 40 among others liy Jolni H. Dohrmann, whose affidavit 
 ill the action of Conover vs. (ireeiie is hereto annex- 
 ed, that there was a regular combination of infring- 
 ers and wood dealers holding meetings and contrib- 
 uting money and other aid in the defences and at- 
 tempts to defeat said ])atent ; that in consequence 
 of such combination and the hindrances and delays, 
 
11 
 
 Mr. Conover was subjected to very long expenses 
 ( in a single case u pon acconntin g alon e the mas ter's fees ^^ 
 was $500) and great loss of time in his business, and 
 was obligad to make unfavorable compromises with 
 infringers and others, and lose a large part of the 
 benefits he would otlierwise have derived from his 
 invention. 
 
 And deponent further says that during the pro- 
 tracted trials, from the opinions of the judges and 
 mechanical experts, the infringers, discovering that 
 the cicmns in the original patent did not separately 
 and specifieally cover all the points of his invention, 42 
 after a variety of unsuccessful eiibrtsto construct ma- 
 chines for splitting wood which would not conflict 
 with his claims as they originally stood, tliey so far 
 succeeded as to construct machines which jiroduce 
 the result to a considerable extent, by omitting one 
 or more of the elements of the invention, or by alter- 
 ing the constrnction thereof, and disguising them in 
 such manner that suflScieut question might be raised 
 to enable them, by still combining together, to keep 
 said Conover engaged in litigation for another long 43 
 period of time. That upon consultation with depon- 
 ent and other counsel who had become familiar with 
 said patent, said Conover was advised to amend and 
 re-issue the same. That at that time there were sev- 
 eral actions pending, and among them two — one 
 against Henry Mevs, and the other against Kohn 
 and Kemnielstiel, all of the City of New York (who 
 at the time were responsible parties), in which de- 
 ponent believed and so advised said Conover, a con- 
 siderable amount could be recovered; that the final 44 
 judgment therein could probably be obtained in a 
 very short time, and that if he re-issued his patent 
 before such final jiulgments were obtained, he would 
 not only lose the large amount of money he had ex- 
 pended but tlie amount it was believed he could re- 
 cover. 
 
And deponent further says that he pushed said ac- 
 
 45 tions forward as rapidly as lie possibly could, but was 
 met at all points by about every subterfuge and 
 technical device that could be invented to hinder 
 and delay their progress, so that final decree against 
 Mevs (which was for $2,500-i2i^o-) coidd not be 
 entered until the lOtli day of June, 1874, and 
 against said Kohn and Keninielstiel (which was 
 for $5,063 /„%) on the 3d day of March, 1875. And 
 deponent lurther says, that among other infringing 
 machines which were introduced after said Conover's 
 
 46 patent, were a numl)er made by one Darwin A. 
 Greene, who pretended and held out to the public, 
 that he liad letters patent of the United Stales 
 therefor; that it was for the use of these machines 
 that recoveries were had against Dohrmann & 
 Peipho, Mevs, and Kohn & Kemmelstiel. That 
 shortly after the judgments against Dohrmann & 
 Peipho, the said machines Avere changed in form by 
 shortening the travelling bed which carried the wood 
 through the machine, causing it to carry the wood 
 
 47 up to the knives or splitters only, leaving the wood 
 remaiuing, and being carried on said travelling bed 
 to push the split wood out of the way, and additional 
 blocks to the splitters. That said Greene and the 
 other infringers gave o it and pretended that said 
 last named machines were constructed in accordance 
 •with the description in certain letters patent granted 
 in Great lU'itain on the 14th day of May, 1825, to 
 H. O. Wetherly, and large numbers of the infringers 
 and others have been, as he is informed and believes, 
 
 48 lead to believe that such was the case, and a con- 
 siderable number of machines have been put in opera- 
 tion under such impression. 
 
 And deponent further says that said Wetherly 
 patent has been put in evidence against said Gonover 
 patent, and esiiccially in the case against Dohrmann 
 & Peipho, and was fully considered by his Honor 
 
13 
 
 Judge Shipman in that case, and passed upon by 
 him. ^B 
 
 Aud deponent further says that in addition to his 
 being- engaged in the trial of patent cases during 
 upwards of 25 years last past, he has during all 
 that time been in tlie habit of examining machinery 
 aud letters patent and giving oj)inions in reference 
 thereto, and also of drawing specifications for and 
 procuring letters patent; that he has examined the 
 said letters patent of H. O. Wetherly, has 
 also consulted with aud examined mechani- 
 cal experts in reference thereto and believes he 50 
 fnlly understands the same, and does not believe 
 the same as described in said letters patent ever was 
 a practical or usetul machine for splitting cord wood 
 into kindling wood ; among the reasons for his ojun- 
 ion is, that the knives pass entirely through the bed 
 on which the blocks stand to be split, that the blades 
 or splitters being set at right angles to each other 
 and in <liagonal directions across the bed, slots must 
 be cut through it in corresponding directions, of suf- 
 ficient capacity to allow knives of requisite thickness 51 
 to pass through easily ; that as said knives require 
 to be about three quarters of an inch thick, the slots 
 will leave two clear openings entirely across the bed, 
 each one inch in width ; now, as the first cut of the 
 blade or knife cuts or splits from the block presented 
 to its action just so much as presented to it, and as 
 the blocks are irregular in size and generally triangu- 
 lar in shape, and as the most desirable size of the 
 sticks for kindling is from one inch to 1^ inches, many 
 smaller pieces will inevitably be produced ; when 52 
 these reach the second slot or opening in the bed, 
 some of them will fall through or become wedged in 
 the slot, preventing the discharge of the wood al- 
 ready split, and thereby crushing and breaking it 
 up — stopping the feeding of the blocks and injuring 
 the machine ; and as the last of said knives or split- 
 
14 
 
 ters must very frequeutly leave similar small pieces 
 
 53 or slivers beLind it which are equally liable to fall 
 through or become wedged into the first slot, in 
 which case also the discliarge and feed are thereby 
 prevented, and furnish other and additional reasons 
 why the Wetherly machine never was a practical or 
 useful machine to split blocks into kindling-wood. 
 And es[)ecially so where the blocks are sawed from 
 cord wood such as is used in this country, which is 
 always irregular in siiape. 
 
 And deponent further says that he has examined a 
 
 54 number of tlie machines that are claimed to be con- 
 structed in accordance with said Wetherly patent, 
 and has liad a large number of others examined in 
 the Cities of New York, Biooklyn, and Jersey 
 City, by a competent expert familiar with 
 wood splitting machines ; and from his 
 own examination and report of said expert none of 
 them were constrncted in any respect substantially 
 like the Wetherly machine ; that they all have solid 
 beds for holding the blocks of wood under the action 
 
 55 of the knives, without any slots or openings what- 
 ever; that the stocks to Avhich the knives or splitters 
 are attached are all reciprocated by a positive crank 
 movement, which forces the knives or splitters into 
 the wood and pulls them out, while in the Wether- 
 ly machine the rod to which ihe knives or splitters 
 are attached is elevated by means of revolving arms, 
 h h, operating on the lower sides of lugs or arms, j j, 
 secured to the rod at the height desired, and is then 
 released from the lifting mechanism and falls by its 
 
 5g gravity ; the weight of the rod and knives con- 
 stituting the only force which drives the knives or 
 splitters by a sudden blow into and entirely through 
 the wood and bed. That in this latter aspect there 
 is also a substantial and material difterence between 
 Conover's invention and the Wetherly machine, for 
 the reason that by the crank movement in the for- 
 
13 
 
 mer the power and force can be regulated to split 
 blocks of any required length, which iu the business 57 
 varies from 3 to 8 or inches, wliile in the latter the 
 same force is expended whether the blocks are 3 or 
 9 inches in length. 
 
 PETER VAN ANTWEEP. 
 
 Sworn to before nie this 31st 
 day of January, 187G. 
 
 Oi£A]tLES M. StEFFOKD, 
 
 Notary Public, NeivYorlc County. 
 
 58 
 
 The following-evidence was before the Cjiuinissioner 
 of Patents on the first application for extension : 
 
 My name is John B. iSpaflbrd ; I am 55 years of 
 age, and reside iu the City of New York. I am in the 
 wood business, selling wood by the cargo, and have 
 been for the last 20 years and upwards. I know Mr. 
 Jacob A. Cpnover, the })etitioner, and have known 
 him from 12 to 15 years last past. I know of his intro- 
 ducing kindling-wood split by machinery — this was 
 about 12 or 15 years ago. This was in Horatio street, 59 
 in this City, his present plaee of business. I saw the 
 machine in operation there about that time I became 
 acquainted with him, and have often seen it in oper- 
 ation there since. I have sui)piied liim witii wood 
 ever since, more or less. I mean ordinary cord wood 
 by the cargo. 
 
 In former times, kindling-wood was sold by the 
 retailers, by the cart-load, and tlien it was sawed and 
 split by hand, the ordinary buck-saAV and axe being 
 used at the residence of the consinner. Now nearly all (jo 
 of it is sawed by steam power and split by machinery, 
 and furnished to the consumers ready for immediate 
 use. Prior to the introduction of these machines a 
 great deal of charcoal was used for kindling purposes. 
 As far as ray knoAviedge goes, kindling wood split by 
 machinery has generally superseded charcoal for 
 
16 
 
 Idiidlino' purposes. Kindling' wood is now furnished 
 (51 to consumers at ivdienper rate tlinn it was wlieu cut 
 and split by the old process. I should suppose it would 
 be cheaper than charcoal. When charcoal was used 
 some other nuiterial was required to be used to light 
 the charcoal. I never knew grocers to keep kindling- 
 wood for sale to consumers, previous to the introduc- 
 ti(ui of these machines. Nearly all the grocers now 
 sell kindling-M'ood, cut and split by machinery. It is 
 also now jteddled about the street, and sold to consu- 
 mers, in small quantities. Previously charcoal was 
 (J2 peddled about the streets and sold by the barrel. 
 
 And in answ er to cross-interrogatories jiropounded 
 to the witness by A. Pollok, Esq., the witness says: 
 
 I understand ^Ir. Conovei's invention to consist in 
 si)litting wood ))y nnichinery. I do not use it. All I 
 know about it is that it splits wood. I have heard peo- 
 ple say that it would split wood better than any other 
 machine. 1 don't know anytiiing more about other 
 machines than what I have heard i)eoi)le say. 1 know 
 nothing- about machinery. 1 am no mechanic, 
 -.o Q. ^^'h^t is the ditference between wood split by 
 hand and wood split by machinery ? 
 
 A. I don't know any ditference, except that it 
 would be cheaper. 
 
 Q. HoAV much cheaper? 
 
 A. That I don't know. 
 
 Q. Do you know of your own knowledge that wood 
 split by machinery was unknown in the I'nited States 
 prior to Ct)nover's introducing wood split by this 
 particular machine ! 
 
 A. That I don't know. 
 
 t)4: 
 
 Q. lb)W nuniy machines does Mr. Conover use in 
 his establishment in Horatio street, or elsewhere ? 
 
 A. I have seen two in his establishment in Horatio 
 street. I don't know of any others that he is using. 
 
 Q. Does he supply the whole city with kindling- 
 wood, or are there other i)arties engaged in the busi- 
 ness of splitting wood for kindling tires ? 
 
17 
 
 A. There are others parties. 
 
 Q. You say in your examiuation in chief, that in 65 
 former tiiiies kindling wood was sold by retailers by 
 the cart-load, &c. Do you mean to say that it was 
 impossible at that time to buy kindling-wood split 
 and in quantities such as might be needed ? And if 
 so, why was it impossible ? 
 
 A. I never knew any, so far as my knowlede goes. 
 It might have been done. 
 
 Q. Can you suggest any reason why kindliug-Avood 
 could not have been sold prior to Oonover's alleged 
 invention ? 66 
 
 A. jSTo, T cannot. 
 
 Q. Do you know how much charcoal is being- 
 made and sold now 1 
 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you know how much charcoal was made 
 and sold, say 15 years ago 1 
 
 A. I don't know. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether more or less charcoal is 
 used now for kindling wood pmposes than there was 
 used, saj'' 15 years ago t 67 
 
 A. I don't know ; I should say there was not. 
 
 Q. Why should you say so ; what means of knowl- 
 edge have you? 
 
 A. It was formerly a common thing to see from 6 
 to a dozen vessel loads, schooners and sloops, of char- 
 coal, and they are not seen now. 
 
 Q. What is the price of kindling wood in this city 
 now? 
 
 A. I don't know as I am competent to tell you ; 
 the prices vary. I sell by the cargo in cord wood. gg 
 
 Q. What was the average price of kindling-wood, 
 in this city, say five years ago, sawed and split ? 
 
 A. I don't know. 
 
 Q. What was the average price of kindling wood, 
 sawed and split, say 15 years ago ? 
 
 A. I don'c know. 
 
18 
 
 ® 
 
 Q. If you don't know what the price of kindling 
 
 69 wood now is, nor what it was 5 or 15 years aj^o, how 
 could you swear that it is cheaper now than it was 
 15 years ago ? 
 
 A. I did not swear so. 
 
 Q. You say that when charcoal was used some 
 other material was required to light the charcoal ; 
 can you liglit kindling-wood witl out a similar mate- 
 rial i 
 
 A. Certainly not. You would have to ha\e i)aiter 
 or a match. You cimld not kindle charconl with a 
 
 70 match in my opinion. 
 
 Q. Could you kindle the kindling-wood, such as 
 is sold in the market, without either jtap'r or sliav- 
 ings, unless you consiuned nn»re matches tlian is 
 economical ? 
 
 A. I should think not. That would be my impres- 
 sion. 
 
 Q. Is there anything p;3culiar in kindling-wood 
 sawed or split by hand tliat would i)revent its beiiig 
 sold by grocers, or peddled alK)at the streets; and 
 
 71 if so, state what ? 
 
 A. I know nothing more than tliis; there would 
 be nothing to ju'event it, that I know of. 
 
 Direct resinned : 
 
 Q. When you said on your direct-exanini.ition, 
 kindling-woud is now furnished at a cheaper rate 
 than when it was cut and split by the old process, 
 did you have any reference to the market price of 
 cord-wood in the stick, or to the advantjige in the 
 use of machinery ! 
 
 Ohjected to. 
 
 A. I supposed it was cheaper by machinery, (,'ord 
 wood has varied in i)rice during the last 15 years 
 from five to fourteen dollars per cord. 
 
 Cross-examination resumed. 
 
 Q. How much does it cost to saw and split a cord 
 
 72 
 
19 
 
 of kindling wood by hand, and liow much by machi- 
 nery. '"' 
 
 A. I don't know. 
 
 My name is Walter Palmer, I reside at No. 73G Fifth 
 street, in the City of New York ; I am 48 years of 
 age, I am in the kindling-wood business, and have 
 been for the last 11 or 12 years, in this city. I know 
 Jacob A. Oonover, the petitioner, and have known 
 him between 10 and 11 years. I have used machin- 
 ery for splitting wood between 10 and 11 years past 
 in the City of New York. In the first place, I used 
 the single axe or knife, fed by holding the block in the 74 
 hand. Afterwards I used Conover's machine ; I com- 
 menced using his machine between 10 and 11 years 
 ago. When I first commenced the wood splitting- 
 business, we made bundles just as ■we do now. I 
 have had wood sawed and split by hand with a buck- 
 saw and axe by some customers who preferred to 
 have it done at the house. I have paid from 7J to 
 8 dollars per cord to have it done in that way. That 
 was the ordinary price for the work, sawing from 
 three to fo'dr cuts to the length of cord-wood, four 75 
 cuts making the pieces from 8 to 9 inches long ; the 
 lengtli of cord-wood averages about three feet six 
 or eight inches. Kindling-wood for the market, 
 grocery trade, is 3^ inches in length. This would 
 cost a great deal more than the long cuts above 
 stated. In a bundle of wood for grocers' use, »&c., 
 there are from 11 to 13 cuts to the length of cord 
 wood. The cost per cord for sawing and of splitting 
 by the Conover machine, in lengths of 3^ inches, is 
 about $1.50 per cord. It is very seldom that any 76 
 portion of the wood that I furnish to consumers is 
 cut and split at their houses by hand — less now at 
 their houses than when I first began. When I first 
 began, I supplied grocers in a small way ; it has 
 increased. The business which I do with grocers 
 has increased at least three-fold. 
 
77 
 
 SO 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Pollak : 
 
 Q. You manufactured and sold kiudling-wood, saw- 
 ed and split in small bundles, before you knfw any- 
 thing of Conover's machine. Is that so ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir ; before I used his machine. 
 
 Q. And you sold such kindling-wood to grocers 
 for the convenience of customers, before you used 
 Conover's machine. Is that so I 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. What do you pay for kindling-wood per cord 
 to be cut ui>. 
 
 no '■ 
 
 ' A. I am paying at present from eight and a half 
 tb ten dollars. 
 
 Q. What do you charge the grocers per cord for 
 kindling Avood, sawed and split and bundled ! 
 
 Objected to. 
 
 A. We sell it fiu' two dollars and fifty cents de- 
 livered, per hundred bundles, and two twenty-five 
 at the yard. 
 
 Q. How many such bundles do you get out of a 
 
 79 cord of wood ? 
 
 A. From G50 bundles to 82.5 bundles ; it depends 
 upon the size and length of the wood. 
 
 Q. Is not most of the kindling-wood sold in very 
 small quantities, and to the poorer classes ? 
 
 A. I think it is. 
 
 Q. What does the grocer charge per bundle, if you 
 know ? 
 
 A. I believe they get about 3 cents per bundle, 
 which is the usual price. In some places among the 
 
 80 better class the grocers get 4 cents per bundle 
 Usiially about 50 cents per hundred advance on the 
 wholesale price. 
 
 Direct resumed. 
 
 Q. What other cost besides sawing and splitting 
 is there to wood ])ut up in bundles, and how much? 
 
SI 
 
 A. About three dollars and fifty cents for bundling 
 per cord. "^ 
 
 Q. Do you sell kindling -wood sawed and split that 
 is not put up in bundles, and to what extent ? 
 
 A. I do ; over ^ of what 1 sell. 
 
 Q. At what price per cord is this sold by whole- 
 sale dealers I 
 
 A. It is selling at the yard from thirteen fifty to 
 fifteen dollars per cord. There is about one-tenth 
 part of the cargo, however, which is knotty or rough 
 wood, which is sold at present, sawed and split, at 
 ten dollars and fifty per cord. 82 
 
 Cross resumed. 
 
 Q. In your judgment, how does the cost of saw- 
 ing by steam or machinery compare with the cost of 
 sawing with the buck-saw by hand ? 
 
 A. I think it would cost four times as much by 
 hand as by steam. 
 
 Q. How does the cost of splitting by Conover's 
 machine compare with the cost of splitting with the 
 lever axe 1 
 
 A. It would make a difference in bundle or long 
 wood, that is, eight-inch wood. I think it would cost 
 five times as much by the axe as by the Oonover 
 machine. 
 
 Q. What is the proportion in the dollar and a half 
 it costs you to saw and split a cord, of the cost of 
 sawing and of splitting ? 
 
 A. When I gave you the cost of sawing and of 
 splitting bundle-wood per cord, I include three men 
 in that, that have nothing to do with the sawing and 
 splitting. They are carrying the wood and bringing 
 it to the saw and from the splitter. It costs a little 
 more for the sawing than it costs for the splitting — a 
 trifle more. 
 
 Direct resumed 
 
 Q. Why does it cost more to saw per cord than to 
 
 83 
 
^2 
 
 split? A. It costs me two dollars per day for the 
 85 man to saw, and about $1.75 per day for the use of 
 the splitting- machine and the boy to feed it, one 
 dollar being the license fee per day for tlie machine. 
 Q. Your estimate is based on tive cords per day; 
 what is the capacity of the machine, that is, how 
 many cords can you s])lit with it in a day with the 
 same help to feed it? A. About 10 cords of bundle- 
 wood. 
 
 Q. Does the price you at present pay for cord-wood 
 say from S to 10 dollars a cord, include the cost of 
 8(5 putting it in the yard, or is it the cost delivered on 
 the dock ? A. It is the cost delivered on the dock, 
 it varies from 50 to 75 cents per cord to put it into 
 the yard from the dock, averaging about (i'Ji cents per 
 cord. 
 
 Croxs resHDtcd : 
 
 Q. When did you first commence to use a Conover 
 machine 1 A. I think it is a little over 10 years 
 ago.., 
 
 87 Q. Did you pay, during all that time, a tariff of 
 $1 per machine and per day? A. I generally paid 
 monthly, and I paid all up to April 1st, 1809. 
 
 Q. How much did you pay in all to Conover t A. 
 I cannot answer that without referring to my books ; 
 it averages now about $25 [)er month for each 
 machine. I only pay for the days I use the ma- 
 chine. 
 
 Q. Did you pay as much as $5,000 in all ? A. 
 I don't think I did. I only had two machines for the 
 
 88 last five years ; previous to that I only had one. 
 
 Q. Is there not a great difference between the 
 measurement of cord wood and that of split wood 1 
 A. There is a great difference ; it increases, I think, 
 a third in bulk. I always measure it l)efore I cut it. 
 
 Q. How much would a cord of wood measure? 
 A. We buy running ineasuremeut — eight feet long 
 
23 
 
 and four feet high — without regard to the length of 
 the wood. Of course we pay less for short than for 
 long wood. 
 
 Q. Do you sell wood in boxes ? A. No, sir. 
 
 Direct resumed. 
 
 Q. Did you ever measure wood by the cord after it 
 was cut up and split in kindling wood? No, sir. 
 
 Q. How do you ascertain how many bundles are 
 made from a cord ? A. I measure the cord before I 
 cut and split it, and keep it by itself and let a boy 
 bundle them, and then count the bundles. 90 
 
 Cross resumed. t 
 
 Q. Do you sell one hundred bundles at a certain 
 l)rice, without regard to the number of bundles you 
 getout of a given cord of wood ? A. I do ; I have to be 
 governed by the price, and not by the number I get 
 out of a cord. 
 
 Q. Then you charge more for one hundred bundles 
 from one cord than you do for one hundred bundles 
 from another cord, according to the number of bun- 91 
 dies produced from one cord; is that so? A. No, sir. 
 We lose on the short wood arid gain on the long wood. 
 
 Q. In your former testimony you have stated that 
 you were engagedin tliebnsiness ofsplitting kindling- 
 wood; please state as near as you can, about how 
 much kindling-wood is split in New York per annum 
 by the wood-dealers ; about how nuich you si)lit per 
 annum ; what machine do you uie ; \\ hat it would cost 
 to split the wood by hand per cord; and what it costs 
 by the Oonover machine for splitting per cord, and 92 
 what experience, if any, you have with the lever axe, 
 and what your opinion of it is? A. There are, I 
 should think, from 7o,(K)0 to 80,000 cords split by ma- 
 chinery per annum. I split per day from 12 to 15 
 cords, making from 3,o00 to 4,500 cords per annum. 
 I use Oono ver's machine. If it was split in 1 he yard by 
 
24 
 
 hand, and make a business of it, it would be cheaper 
 
 93 than if it were done at tlie house. It niiglit, I tliinl\, 
 be done for a dollar and a quaiter a eord, when split by 
 hand. To s])]it by Oonover's machine, it costs from 
 6 to 7 cents per c(n'd, if you have as much as the 
 boy can do ; if you don't, it would cost more. The 
 boy's wages who attends the machine are paid by the 
 week. I have had experience with the use of the 
 lever axe in splitting' kindling-wood; I think I used 
 it about a year, perhaps more. 1 have not nuich 
 opinion of it ; I could not accomplish much with it. 
 
 94 It was difficult to get the boys to work it. I could 
 not do enough work with it to make it answer for 
 my business. 
 
 Cross-examined hy A. Pollak, Esq. 
 
 Q. Wlio did you get tlie lever axe machine from ? 
 A. A man by the name of Jacob Palmer, I be- 
 lieve, 2.5th street. New York City. 
 Q. Was it a patented machine ? 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 95 Q- ^Vhat did you pay for itf 
 
 A. I don't remember; I think it was $75.00. It 
 worked by steam power. The wood was held np by 
 hand. 
 
 Q. How many Oonover machines are there in use 
 in this city ? 
 
 A. To the best of my knowledge, 10 or 17. I don't 
 know exactly. 
 
 90 
 
 Direct resumed. 
 
 Q. Please state whether you knew of the lever 
 axe machine before you had heard of the Conover 
 machine. 
 
 A. I could not say. I heard of the Conover ma- 
 chine, before I used the lever Axe machine. 
 
My Dame is John H. Hesnian. I am forty -four 
 years of age. I reside 785 Greenwicli street, New 97 
 York City. I am eugaged in tlie business of split- 
 ting wood by machinery. 
 
 Q. State about what amount of kindling-wood is 
 split by the wood dealers in the City of New York 
 per annum, and what would be the cost of splitting 
 same by hand, or by Mr. Oonover's machine ? 
 
 A. I calculate about 100,000 cords of wood are 
 split by wood dealers per annum in the City of New 
 York, and it would cost to split ifc by hand about 
 $2.00 per cord; and it would cost to split it with Mr. 98 
 Oonover's machine about 12 cents per cord, for the 
 boy to run the machine, and about 6 cents more a 
 cord for the wear and tear of the machine, and look- 
 ing after it. 
 
 Q. Did you ever use the lever axe for splitting 
 wood? 
 
 A. I did for three months. 
 
 Q. Why don't you use it now 1 
 
 A. It was too expensive. I could not make it pay, 
 and I could not get anybody to work on it. It Avas 99 
 dangerons. It cut the men's iingers off, and would 
 not do enough work. A boy could not split more 
 than two cords and a half a day with it. 
 
 Cross-examination by Me. Pollak. 
 
 Q. What personal knowledge have you of the 
 amount of wood split in New York jjer annum ? 
 
 A. I know there are so many in the business, and 
 I have figured up one more and the other less, about 
 six or seven cords a day apiece; therefore, I made ^„„ 
 my calculation about 100,000 cords per annum. 
 
 Q. How many are in the business in New York 
 City ? 
 
 A. There are only 41 or 42 in New York Oitj^ A 
 great many do more than 6 or 7 cords a day. I do 
 more business myself. Last year I split about 3,650 
 cords. 
 
2fi 
 
 102 
 
 Q. Do all the 42 use the Conover luachhie? 
 101 A. Ho, sir. 
 
 My uame is Theron Kelsey; I am 42 years of 
 age ; I reside at 359 Pacific street, Brooklyu ; I am a 
 coal and wood dealer, of the firm of Kelsey & 
 Loxighlau. 
 
 Q. Are you engaged in the business of splitting 
 kindling-wood by machinery ! if yea, what machine 
 do you use ! 
 
 A. That is a part of our business in Brooklyn. 
 We are using Mr. Green's splitter. It is licensed 
 now by Conover since the law suit. 
 
 Q. Please state as near as you can, about how 
 much kindling wood is split in Brooklyn i)er annum 
 by wood dealers ; about how much your firm split 
 per anum; what it costs you to split the wood 
 by hand per cord, and what it costs per cord to split 
 it by the machines used by your firm ? 
 
 A. I believe the (piantity of wood consumed by 
 -.^o famalies in Brooklyn, which is split by hand aiul by 
 machinery, to be about 50,000 cords per annum, and 
 I think about 20,000 cords of this is machine splitting. 
 Our firm splits between 2,000 and 3,000 per annum. It 
 depends on the length as to how much it would 
 cost to si^lit it by hand. I can't speak from my 
 own knowledge of Conover's machine, but only of 
 the cost of the Greene machine. Now the bundle 
 wood of the Greene machine would cost about 
 16 to 20 cents per cord for the immediate at- 
 tendance of the machine. A boy attends the nui- 
 chiue. The same wood to be split by hand would 
 cost $2.00 per cord. What we call family wood 
 would cost $1.25 per cord to split it by hand. We 
 also have a single knife macliiue on a shaft, which 
 costs about 50 cents per cord for fnniily wood, and 
 about 75 cents per cord for Itundle wood. The wood 
 split by machinery is mostly bundle wood. 
 
 104 
 
27 
 
 State, City and County of Netv York, ss. : 
 
 105 
 
 Abkaham J. De Baun, being duly sworn says, he 
 is 56 j^ears of age, resides in the City of Brooklyn, and 
 is a dealer in kindling-wood in said city, and has been 
 in said business in said city for upwards of 19 years 
 last past, and has, daring all that time, used what is 
 known as the Oonover splitter, under a license from 
 Jacob A. Oonover of the City of New York. That 
 previous to going into said wood business he resided in 
 the City of New York, and was there engaged in the 
 milk business for about 5 years, and dealt with gro- 106 
 cers and others ; that he w^ell recollects the first in- 
 troduction of kindling-wood being put in market and 
 sold by grocei-s and peddlers about the streets, to be 
 sold in quantities to accommodate all classes, and 
 that it was soon after Mr. Conover's machine was 
 put in operation ; that previously to that charcoal 
 was keiJt by grocers, and peddled and used for kin- 
 dlings ; that very soon after Mr. Conover's machine 
 began to be used, kindling wood began to be kept by 
 grocers and j^eddled, and in a very short time after 107 
 its introduction it almost entirely took the place of 
 charcoal as kindling material. That when he began 
 the business in Brooklyn there was none kept there 
 by grocers or peddled about the streets, and he knows 
 that he first introduced it and had considerable difficul- 
 ty in doing so : that there seemed to be a prejudice 
 against it, or a doubt of its utility, which however 
 soon gave way, and its use soon rapidly increased. 
 
 And deponent further says that very soon after its 
 success was established, other machines began to be ]^q§ 
 introduced, and although they were inferior to the 
 Oonover machine, and did not split so good for econ- 
 omical use, they interfered to a large extent with de- 
 ponent and the other licensees of Mr. Oonover; and 
 such interference multiplying and increasing, and 
 many of the parties being irresi)onsible, he appealed 
 
28 
 
 to Mr. Oouover to protect him, or make a deduction 
 
 109 in his license fees ; that said Oouover informed him 
 tliat it would be next to impossible just then to cany 
 on suits ayainst all the parties infrinjiing, especi- 
 ally so as new ones were constantly si»nnglng' up, 
 and those already infringing were constantly chang- 
 ing, consented to reduce the amount to be paid one 
 half, until such time as he could more fully ]>rotect 
 deponent, and this was upward of seven years ago. 
 
 And deponent furtlier says he inis bad wood split 
 by band, and known about the cost thereof, and he 
 
 1 10 has made an estimate of tlie difference in ex]»ense be- 
 tween machine and bands-plitting, and in his judg- 
 ment taking all tlie costs, cliarges, and cxi)enscs, in- 
 cluding wear and tear of machinery, power and every 
 thing into consideration, there is a saving of at 
 least $2.50 per cord by the use of the machine. 
 
 And dejtonent further says that he has seen several 
 of the interfering machines and has seen them in 
 operation, and knows that the Conovcr machine is 
 greatly superior to any he has seen, both in the ra])- 
 
 111 idity of its work, and the ipuility of its production. 
 
 ABM. J. DE BAUN. 
 
 Sworn to before me, this First 
 day of February, 1876. 
 
 Wm T. Lett 
 
 Notunj Fuhlk- for Ar/r Yorl; County and State. 
 
 IV. 
 
 State of New York, I ^^ . 
 City and County of New Yorl;^ 
 
 John H. Hessiian, being duly sworn, says he re- 
 sides in the City of New York ; is Hfty-one years of 
 age, and is engaged in the kindling-wood business 
 in said city, and has been for upwards of fourteen 
 years last past. That he uses a machine for split- 
 
29 
 
 ting wood under a license from Jacob A. Conover, 
 and has used the same for about fourteen years last 113 
 past; that he recollects the time when Oonover applied 
 for an extension of his patent, aud deponent was 
 examined as a witness upon such extension ; that he 
 believes that the introduction of machines has con- 
 ferred a great benefit upon the public, and that the 
 inventor thereof is justly entitled to a suitable re- 
 ward therefor. That he knows of his own know- 
 ledge, that for at least twelve years last past, com- 
 binations of wood dealers have been in existence to 
 defeat the claims of said Conover, and that large 114 
 sums of money have been collected and disbursed 
 for that purpose. Aud deponent further sa> s that 
 after said Conover procured his extension he believed 
 it to be valuable, aud that the rights under said ex- 
 tension was worth upwards of $20,000 for the City 
 of jSTew York alone, and was one of a party of a 
 number of wood dealers in the City of New York, 
 who held a meeting and made an ofler to said Cono- 
 ver of $20,000 for such right for said City. 
 
 And deponent furiher says that he knows ot his 115 
 own personal knowledge that said Conover lias been 
 obliged to make large deductions from liis ordinary 
 license fees in consequence of the opposition by 
 parties who refused to respect his claims. 
 
 his 
 JOHN H. M HESSMAN 
 mark 
 
 Sworn to before me, this > 
 
 29th day of Jan., 1876, S 
 
 "^ ' ' 116 
 
 O. W. Flak AG AN 
 
 Notary Fuhlic, iV. Y. Co. 
 
so 
 
 State, Citii and Coindif of New York. ss. : 
 117 
 
 Daxiel II. Cahpextek, being- duly sworn, says he 
 resides at Soutli Orange, iutlie State of New Jersey; 
 is 48 years of age, and is engaged in the manufacture 
 and planing of luuiber, and has been for about 23 
 years last past at ;i!> and 41 Bethune street, in the 
 City of New York. Tliat he knows Jacob A. Con- 
 over of saiil city, and has known him for about 25 
 years last past. That in tlie year 1854 said Conover 
 occupied apartments in the same building in Beth- 
 118 une street aforesaid, engaged in the business of stair 
 buildiiig. Tliat deponent well recollects that during 
 the summer and fall of said year said Conover was 
 engaged in constructing a macliine for splitting- 
 wood. That deponent was frequently in his apart- 
 ments seeing- him at work at it, and had fre(iuent 
 conversations with him and others occu])ying shop- 
 room in said buildings, in relation thereto, and depo- 
 nent recollects that it was the opinion of himself and 
 others who saw it that it would prove a failure, and 
 2 19 that even if he succeeded in making it oi)erate suc- 
 cessfully in splitting wood, he would be unable to 
 make it pay. 
 
 And deponent further says that when said Con- 
 over put it in operation he went to see it work aud 
 was much surprised at its success. 
 
 And deponent further says that previous to his 
 going- into said luud>er planing business he was 
 engaged tV)r about 8 years in the retail grocery busi- 
 ness .ts a clerk : for the first 3 years with Peter J. 
 J20 ''^hultz, at the corner of Washington and Christopher 
 street in said City, and for the renuiinder of the time 
 with Heiu-y Carlough, in said City ; that during all 
 the time he was so engaged in said grocery business 
 it was the i)ractice to keep charcoal to be sold in 
 small quantities to customers for kindling hard coal 
 fires, and a large amount was sold by grocers for that 
 
M 
 
 pni^pose, and peddlers went abont peddling it. Tliat 
 shortly after Conover began to introduce his kind- 121 
 ling wood, it began to take the place of charcoal, 
 and soon almost entirel.v superseded it: and from 
 deponent's knowledge and experience in thematter, he 
 believes that the cost of kindling a hard coal fire by 
 the nse of wood as now manufactured and furnished 
 would not exceed one half \he cost of kindling by 
 the use of charcoal. 
 
 DANIEL H. OAEPENTEE. 
 
 iSworn to before me this } 
 28th day of January, 1876. 5 
 
 [l.s.] James A. Palmek. 
 
 Notary iniblic for the 
 
 Cotuities of Kings and New York. 
 
 122 
 
 State of ISv.w Jeksey, ) . 
 County of Hudson. ) 
 
 Egbert Donshea, being duly sworn, says he is 
 Forty- seven years of age, resides in Jersey City, in 
 the County of Hudson and State of ISTew Jersey, and 123 
 has been engaged in the kindling-wood business ever 
 since the year 1858, using a regular Conover machine 
 for splitting the wood into kindlings; that the busi- 
 ness of supplying such wood to families and grocers 
 has greatly increased since he commenced said busi- 
 ness, so for the past five or six years there has been 
 cut up and split into kindlings, and sold in said Coun- 
 ty of Hudson, on an average of at least 10,000 cords 
 per annum, at least nine-tenths of which has been 
 split by machines. ]24 
 
 And deponent further says, that as soon as it be- 
 came known that said Conover machine was a suc- 
 cess, a number of other machines were introduced into 
 said county, which deponent is informed and believes 
 are infringements on the Conover patent; that depon- 
 ent's business was seriously interfered with by such 
 machines, and he made application to said Conover 
 
to make a dednction from deponent's license fees, 
 125 nntil he could be protected from the interference by 
 snch alledged infringers and said Oonovcr made a 
 deduction of iifty dollars per year therefrom. 
 
 EGBERT DONSHEA. 
 
 Sworn to before me this ) 
 31st day of January, 1876. 5 
 George E. Cutter, 
 
 Justice of the Peace. 
 
 ^'' I ss. : 
 
 H. ) 
 
 State of New Jersey 
 
 126 .Count!/ of Hudso 
 Martin Dayies, being duly sworn says, he resides 
 
 at Hoboken, County of Hudson, in the State of New 
 Jersey, is 39 years of age, and is engaged with Isaac 
 lugleson in the Ivindling-wood business, and has been 
 for five years last past; that when he commenced 
 said business he sawed the wood into blocks with 
 saws driven by steam power, and employed men to 
 split it by hand with axes ; that an extra smart man 
 at two dollars per day wages, with the assistance of 
 
 127 a boy to place tlie blocks in convenient reach, and 
 take away the split wood could split one cord of 
 wood per day into the proper size for kindling. That 
 after operating in that way for about three mouths, 
 he found they could not compete with parties using 
 machines; besides, their customers complained that 
 their wood was not properly split. They purchased a 
 regular Oonnover machine and obtained a license for 
 its use at one ilollar per day for each day on which 
 said machine was used ; that they found they could 
 
 128 split eight cords per day with the assistance of 
 a boy at 33^ cts. per day to feed it ; that the wood 
 was split much better, and that the ditt'erence be- 
 tween the cost of splitting by the machine, taking 
 into consideration the license fee, cost of power, 
 wear and tear of machinery, feeding, and all other 
 expenses incident to its use, is at leas $2.50 per cord 
 less than by baud, besides doing it much better. 
 
33 
 
 And deponent further says that in a short time 
 their business was seriously interfered with by the 129 
 use in Hudson Ooiiuty, New Jersey, of three or four 
 infringing- machines, as he is informed and believes, 
 and appealed to Mi\ Oonover for proteeti(m ; that h 
 was informed by him that he already had a number 
 of suits on hand whicli he was pressing to judgment 
 and at a heavy expense, and lie could not just then 
 atford to enter into any more prosecutions, but would 
 do so as soon as possible, aiul in the meantime 
 would make reasonable deduction from their license 
 fees; that said Oonover has since made such deduc- 130 
 tion to the extent of two-thirds thereof. 
 
 And deponent fiuther snys that he is informed 
 and believes said Oonover has commenced actions for 
 infringement ofhis pateiitag ainst three of the parties, 
 viz.: Sprouls & Murphy, Jolni G. Loehr, and James 
 E. Whyte, allot Jersey Oity, in said Oounty; all of 
 whom, as he is informed and believes, liave appeared 
 in said actions by tlie same lawyer who is employed 
 to defend a number of other infringers against whom 
 suits have also been commenced. 131 
 
 And deponent furtlier says that lie and his copart- 
 ner were invited to attend a meeting of vvood dealers 
 at Germauia Assembly-rooms in the City of New York, 
 in September last; that they attended once; that 
 there was a large attendance at that meeting; that 
 it was stated in said meeting that the object was to 
 organize a combination, and raise money to defeat 
 said Oonover's claims under his patent ; tliat d^^po- 
 nent declined joining the combination, but he knows 
 that the parties above named as being sued, attend ^32 
 ed and took part in the meeting of said combination. 
 
 MAETIN DAVIES. 
 
 Sworn to before me, this 31st 
 day of January, 1876. 
 
 F. M. MoDONOUGH, 
 
 Justice of the Peace. 
 
34 
 
 State, City and County of New Yorl; ss: 
 
 •^ Walter Palmer, being duly swoni, says he has 
 heard read bis foregoing evidence on examination 
 on the 15th day of April, and 4th day of May, 1869, 
 in the matter of the application of Jacob A. Conover 
 for an extension of his letters patent for a machine 
 for splitting wood, and knows it is eori'ectand true in 
 all respects; and dei)onent further says that the lever- 
 axe referred to in his evidence was operated by steam 
 power, had a positive up-and-down movement, and 
 worked through a slot or side bars, which stripped 
 
 l^'* otf any wood which adiiered to the axe, operating 
 substantially the same as the clearer plate in the 
 Conover machine ; and deponent further says that 
 what lie calls the lever-axe is the same thing as Avhat 
 was also called the single-axe machine, operating in 
 the same manner substantially, by positive up-and- 
 down motion, and having the same clearer to strip 
 the wood from the axe. 
 
 And deponent further says that he attended a 
 meeting of wood dealers, of the City of New York, 
 
 1^5 using Conovcr's wood-splitting machine, which Avas a 
 very full meeting, al)out the time that said C(mover 
 got the extension of his patent, and we then and there 
 offered him the sum of twenty thousand dollars for 
 the exclusive right to use his patent wood splitter for 
 the C'ity of New York for the extended term ; that 
 Conover would not accept of it, but ottered the same 
 to us for from $30,(100 to $35,000 ; but he not accept- 
 ing of our otter, there the matter ended; that among 
 others that attended said meeting was George Kuhn, 
 
 130 Dohrmann tt' Peipho and John H. Hessman. 
 
 WALTEE PALMER. 
 
 Sworn to before me tliis ) 
 29th day of Jan., 1870. S 
 
 Chas. A. Dickinson, 
 
 Notary Piiblic, Kings Co. 
 
§5 
 
 The decisions and opinions of the jnrtges of the 
 United States Court, in the several cases referred to 137 
 in the affidavits of Jacob A. Oonover and Peter Van 
 Antwerp, in reference to the patent in question, will 
 be found reported as follows : 
 
 Oonover vs. Dohrmann, &c., 3d Fisher, 382 — Judge 
 
 Shipuian. 
 Oonover vs. Mevs, 3d Fisher, 386 — Judge Blatchford. 
 Oonover t's. Eoach, 4th Fisher, 12. Judge Hall. 
 Oonover vs. Eapp, 4th Fisher, 57. Judge Ingersoll. 
 Johnson vs. McOnllongh, 4th Fisher, 170. Judge 
 
 Giles. 
 Oonover vs. Mevs (on accounting),^ 6th Fisher, 506. 
 
 Judge Woodruff. 
 
 138 
 
 139 
 
 140 
 
s? 
 
 IJOTTED STATES CIRCUIT OOUET. 
 Second Circuit Southern District of New York. 
 
 141' 
 
 Jacob A. Conover, 
 
 vs. 
 Darwin A. Greene. 
 
 142 
 
 United States of America, ) 
 Southern District of New York 5 
 
 Jacob A. Conover, the complaiuant in this action 
 being duly sworn, says that at the time he obtained 
 his original letters patent there was no machine in 
 existence, to the best of his knowledge and belief, 
 embracing any of the combinations granted to him 
 in any of the claims of his re-issued letters patent re- 
 ferred to in this acti«m. That immediately after he 
 obtained his original letters patent he put machines 
 constructed under it in use and soon found that they 
 were a success. That witliin one year after he began 143 
 to supply wood, ready split for kindling, to families 
 and grocers, there began to be infringements ; that he 
 immediately began prosecution. In his first action 
 against Peter E. Roach, commenced May 1.3th, 1856, 
 in this Court, there was a disagreement of the jury, 
 standing eleven in his favor and one for the defend- 
 ant ; that the defendant then proposed to deponent to 
 convey to deponent certain interest in certain other 
 letters patent in consideration of a special right or 
 license for the use of two machines in the City of 3^44 
 ]S"ew York, and a grant for certain territory in some 
 of the Southern States, which deponent at the time 
 did not consider of much value ; and as deponent had 
 already expended a considerable sum of money in 
 said suit, and was not in a condition to expend the 
 additional money that would be required to continue 
 
38 
 
 said prosecution, he accepted the ofl'er anddiscontin- 
 145 lied tlie action. And deponent further says, that 
 shortly after the termination of said action, he found 
 that one John H. I\app was infringing upon his said 
 patent, and immediately brought an action against 
 him in this Court, and the same was tried before the 
 Hon. Judge Ingersoll and a jury, and a verdict was 
 rendered in favor of the deponent sustaining his pat- 
 ent. That said IJapp subseciuently settled said ac- 
 tion l>y i)aying to deponent tlie sum of thirteen hun- 
 dred dollars for danuiges and costs. And deponent 
 140 further says that shortly after the settkMuent of said 
 action against said Eapp, he found another machine 
 in operation by John H. Dohrmaini and John H. 
 Peipho, which he Mas informed and believes was 
 made through the instrumentality of 1). A. Greene, 
 the defendant in, his action, AAho claimed that it was 
 manufactured under letters i)atent granted to him. 
 That from informatior., which he believed, the said 
 Greene was a man of no pecuniary responsibility, and 
 the difficulty of obtaining satisfactory information 
 
 147 as to the real makers of the machine, and knowing 
 that Dohrnmnn and Peipho were responsible, he com- 
 menced an action against them on the Equity side 
 of this Coiu't, which was tried before his Hon. W. D. 
 Shipman, and residted in his favor and his recover- 
 ing twenty-two hundred dollars. That he also com- 
 menced an action in this Cou.rt in Equity against 
 Henry Mevs, and also against Josepli Kohn and 
 Samuel Kemmelstiel, both, Avhich were on the same 
 kind of machines as that of Dohrmann and Peipho, 
 
 148 also put in xise thi-ough the instrumentality of said 
 Greene under his said pntcudid letters patent. 
 That he recovered against both parties, but owing 
 to the contest with said Kohn aUd Kemmelstiel on 
 the accounting, and the death of said Kemmelstiel, 
 the final decree was not entered in that case until 
 the 3d day of March, 1875. And deponent further 
 
39 
 
 says, that during all the protracted and vexatious 
 proceedings in the three latter-uanied cases, the l'^^ 
 said Greene appeared to be the most active manager 
 for the defendants. And deponent further says, 
 that during the foregoing period he has also beeii 
 obliged to commence a number of suits against 
 other parties for using the same kind of machines, 
 also i)Ut i.i operation tln-ough the instrumentality 
 of said Greene under his j;vY'/(»rftfZpateut, a number' 
 of which actions have been compromised. 
 
 And deponent further says, that in consequence 
 of the said acts of said Greene, de])onent has been 150 
 obliged to compromise with nearly all the persons 
 holding licenses from him, to his loss and damage 
 of upwards of ten thousand dollars, as he verily 
 believes, and has also been prevented from granting 
 license and from receiving x)ay for the use of his 
 machine from others. 
 
 And deponent further saj^s, that soon after the 
 re-issue of his letters patent, he printed a notice 
 thereof, and caused it to be delivered to a large num- 
 ber of wood dealers in the City of New York and its 151 
 vicinity. 
 
 Tliat he called at 625 East 15th street, in thiscity 
 where said Greene, with one John A. Oolton, were 
 manufacturing kindling-wood machinery, to notify 
 them of said re-issue, and of his claims. That said 
 Greene had left, and had gone to 111 Liberty street, 
 in said city, from where, as he his informed and 
 believes, he issued a circular, a copy of which is 
 annexed to the aflddavit herein of Thomas Van 
 Antwerp, and that deponent has met with several 1^2 
 of them among the wood dealers in this city. 
 
 And dei)onent further says, that as he is informed 
 and believes, said Green has been instrumental in 
 putting at least one machine for splitting wood, made 
 by him and said Oolton, in operation and use since 
 said re-issue, which machine is correctly represented' 
 
40 
 
 by the cut or illustration on the first page of said 
 
 153 circular. 
 
 And deponent further says, that since said re-issuo 
 H large number of the wood dealers in and about 
 New Ycu'k have held a number of meetings in this 
 city, and organized an association or combination to 
 defeat deponent's claims under his re-issued patent, 
 and have subscribed and collected a considerabk' 
 amount of money tor the puri»ose, and th:it (Tret'ne 
 has been one of the most active participants in said 
 movements. 
 
 154 And deponent further says, he has lately, and since 
 said re-issue, commenced an action for the use of one 
 of said Greene machines against Louis ('. Ibosi, in 
 which, as he is informed and believes, said (ireene has 
 made an artidavit for the defendant. That in- has 
 read a paper purporting to be a copy of said a Hi- 
 davit, which he is informed and believes was served 
 in said actionby defendant's counsel on P. ^'an .Ant- 
 werp, deponent's counsel, in which he says, amoig 
 other things : "And de|)(nient further says: tliat it 
 
 IKS "is a notorious fact that the complainant's machine, 
 "as described by its drawings and si)('citication, is 
 "not and never was a practical machine wiiliont the 
 " aid of in\'ention other than the original invenloi', 
 " and it has never been nor can it be successfully used 
 "as patented without additional im])rovcments, for 
 "the reason that llie blocks of wood on the moA cable 
 "carriage, in advancing toward or under tlie knives, 
 "are not properly ])rotected against falling over 
 "and rendering the action of the knives useless. 
 
 -. f.^ " And dejionent further says, that the Greene machine 
 "possesses great advantages over the Conover 
 " machines, in that they cost less, make less noise, are 
 " not so liable to get out of (uder, and cut more wood 
 " per hoiu', and recpiire no foundation to rest upon 
 "other than an ordinary tloor; while the Conover 
 *• machines requiie a tirui stone or brick foundation." 
 
41 
 
 And deponent further says that he is also informed 
 that said Greene also procured his former associate, ^^7' 
 John. A Ooltou, to make an affidavit in the case of 
 said Brosi ; that a paper purporting to be a copy 
 thereof was also served on deponent's said counsel, in 
 which affidavit said Colton is made to state, among 
 other things : " And deponent further says, that he 
 " knows that complainant's machine, as described 
 "by its drawings and specifications, is not, and 
 " never was, a practical machine, and without the 
 "aid of other invention and improven;ent, it 
 " has never been, nor can it be successfully used 158 
 "as patented. That among the reasons which render 
 "said machine impracticable is the fact that ordinary 
 " kindling-wood blocks, in advancing toward or under 
 " the knives, are not properly protected against falling 
 "over and rendering the action of the knives useless j 
 " and to avoid that difficulty deponent devised, many 
 " .years ago, side guides and springs to hold the wood 
 " in position on the moveable bed, and such device 
 "of deponent was adopted by him in the construction 
 " of the (]onover machine made by deijonent and has 159 
 "also been adopted by other manufacturers of said 
 " machines." 
 
 And deponent further says, that the said Greene and 
 Colton, are both mistaken in their statements and 
 opinions. That there is a macliine now in use at his 
 factory at the foot of Horatio Street, in this city, and 
 which has been in use there by himself and successors 
 for upwards of five years last past, which was con- 
 structed in full conformity with his specifications and 
 drawings, and has no side guides or springs to the bed, iqq 
 and has not had during any part of said five years. 
 That originally it had spiings and guides, but it was 
 found thej- were unnecessary for the kind of wood 
 he desired split with it, and he removed them. And 
 deponent further says that shortly after putting one 
 of his machines in ojjeratiou, he found that in splitting 
 
42 
 
 certain styles of kindling wood, the machine would 
 
 161 work better by the addition of guides and springs, 
 and he accordingly attached guides and rubber 
 springs to the machine, so as to oi)erate at each side 
 of that part of the bed opposite to the knives, and such 
 guides and springs were so attached some time before 
 said Coltton built any of his machines 
 
 And dei)onent further says, that after said copy of 
 the affidavit of said Colton was served upon his coun- 
 sel, he called upon said Oolton with it, and showed 
 and explained to him what he was made to say. That 
 
 162 said Colton informed him he had been called upon by 
 said Greene, in company with some one else. That a 
 rough draft of an affidavit had been drawn which he 
 believed to be correct; that he never read or heard 
 rt^ad the jiaper he signed his name to when sworn, 
 taking for granted it was a correct copy of the one 
 read to him before. That he did not understand at the 
 time, that he was made to state tliat he first devised 
 the guides and springs referred to for the Conover 
 machine, because such was not the fact, as the first 
 
 163 Conover machine he ever sau' had guides and springs 
 attached, but the springs were made of rubber ; that he, 
 Colton, proposed to substitute steel springs for the 
 rubber, and on consultation witli said Conover, they 
 were so substituted afterwards 
 
 And dei)onent futher says, that at said last named 
 interview with said Colton, he made inquiries of 
 him concerning said Greene's pecuniary cc.Kditicn 
 and received a statement thereof, of which he made 
 notes. That he procured his counsel to put the 
 
 164 same in the form of an affidavit. That such affi- 
 davit was accordingly i)repared, and is hereto an- 
 nexed. That he called on said Colton with it, and 
 he read it, an<l said it was correct ; but in conse- 
 quence of the pecuniary matters between him and 
 Greene, he did not wish to swear to it vohuitarily, 
 but would do so if subpoenaed. 
 
165 
 
 43 
 
 And deponent further says, that the matters set 
 forth in said form of affidavit for said Col ton, cor- 
 rectly sets fortli the statement concerning said 
 Greene's pecuniary condition, given by said Oolton 
 to deponent. 
 
 And deponent further says, that he is informed 
 and believes that at a meeting of the association 
 and combination of wood dealers hereinbefore re- 
 ferred to, lield at Gerinania Assembly Eooms, in the 
 City of New York, certain proceedings were had 
 and were embodied in a printed circular in the 
 words and figures following, viz. : ^" 
 
 " New York, October, 1875. At a meeting of the 
 '■ Kindling Wood Dealers, held at Germania Assem- 
 " bly Eooms, No. 291 Bowery, on Friday evening, 
 " Oct. 8th, the following resolution was unani- 
 " monsly adox)ted : 
 
 " WhereaSj A number of wood de alers using Greene's 
 " Felton's, and other wood splitting-machines claim- 
 "ed by Jacob A. Conover, as an infringement 
 " on his patent, have neglected to contribute the sum 
 " of fifty dollars towards defraying the necessary ^^^ 
 " legal expense for contesting these claims ; 
 
 " Eesolved, that any dealer neglecting or refusing 
 " to pay the above assessment on or before Monday 
 " evening, Oct. 18th, 1875, is hereby deprived of all 
 "legal support and benefit of this association, and 
 " in order to be reinstated, will have to pay the sum 
 " of one hundred dollars. John 0. Eapp, Chairman ; 
 " James E. Whyte, Jr., Secretary ; Committee — F. 
 "Myers, L. 0. Brosi, F. Frith, J. E. AVhyte, J. C. 
 " Eapp. N. B. — A regular meeting will be held at 168 
 " the above place, on Monday evening, October 18th, 
 '■ at 8 o'clock percisely." 
 
 That said circular was sent to a number of wood 
 dealers who had not before attended said meetings, 
 or joined said combination. That he has received 
 copies of said circulars from several wood dealers, 
 
44 
 
 holding- license from him, and believes the said cir- 
 169 cular has had the ett'eet to add a considerable nimi- 
 ber of opponents to his rights under his patent who 
 would not otherwise have joined sriid combination. 
 
 JACOB A. CONOVER. 
 
 Sworn to before me, this 17th } 
 day of November, 1875. 3 
 R. A. Stillwell, 
 
 U. S. Commissioner. 
 
 ss. 
 
 170 
 
 United States of America. 
 
 Southern District of New Yorli. 
 
 JOHX A. CoLTONof the City of New York, being duly 
 sworn, says, he is sixty live years of age, that lie has 
 been a machinist for ni>wards of 40 years last i)asr, 
 and is at present carrying on that busint'ss at (i'J.5 
 and 027 East 15th street, in said city. That he knows 
 Darwin A. Greene, the defendant, and was in Irasintss 
 with him for about 15 months previ(ms and up to the 
 
 171 2ad day of July last. That said(;reeu, when he left<le- 
 ponent, was indebted to him in the sum of from $.'5,000 
 to $4,000 for which deponent now holds a chattel mort- 
 gage on his tools, to secure $2,n(!0 thereof, which 
 tools are not worth more than, in the present state 
 of the trade and market, the amount of said mort- 
 gage. And deponent further says, that he knows that 
 said Greene is also indebted to Edward L. Trowbridge 
 and William B. Baldwin in from .$12,000 to $14,000, 
 for whiL-h theyoflfered to taketifty cents on (he dollar 
 
 172 out of the said Greene's portion of the protits of the 
 business with deponent, from time to time, as they 
 might accrue, but that said business with deponent 
 was not prosperous; and deponent terminated the 
 same on the 2.3(1 day of July aforesaid, and took the 
 mortgage aforesaid as part security for said Greene's 
 indebtedness to him. And deponent further says that 
 
45 - • 
 
 from the facts aforesaid, and other knowledge and in- 
 formation, he believes the said Greene to be hopeless- 173 
 ly insolvent and wholly unable to pay his just debts. 
 
 And deponent further says, thatsince the dissolution 
 with deponent as aforesaid, heisinformed and believes 
 the said Greene has procured some situation with H. 
 S. Manning- & Co., No 111 Liberty sti'eet, in this City, 
 and has issued circulars and cards in his own name, a 
 printed copy of which is annexed to the foregoing 
 affidavit of Thomas Van Antwerp, offering to build 
 and supply kindling-wood machines to the trade. 
 
 174 
 
 United States of America, 7 
 Soutlieni District of New York. ) 
 
 Peter Van Antwerp, being diUy sworn, says, he 
 is the solicitor and counsel for th3 comp^.inaut in 
 this action, and has been the solicitor and counsel 
 for him from the time of the commencement of tiie 
 first action under the letters patent in question, and 
 has personallj' conducted all the actions and proceed- j'75 
 ings referred to in the foregoing affidavit of the 
 complainant, and knows that all the statenients in 
 said affidavit in relation to said actions and proceed- 
 ings are substantially true. 
 
 And deponent further says that be has commenced 
 thirty actions under said letters patent for said com- 
 plainant, and all, with about five exceptions, against 
 parties using what is known in the kindling wood 
 business as the Greene machine, all made sold or_ 
 put upon the market by or through the instrument- 17(5 
 ality of the defendant, Darwin A. Greene, as he has 
 bsen informed and believes. 
 
 And deponent further says, he had frequent con- 
 versations with many of the persons so prosecuted, 
 and does not recollect a single one who did not 
 claim and state that he had been persuaded by said 
 
46 
 
 Greene to buy such niachine, under the assurance 
 
 1 77 '' 
 
 that he owned a i)atent for the same, and would fully 
 
 protect him against any claim made by the com- 
 plainant herein. 
 
 And deponent further says, that in all the litiga- 
 tions and proceedings, excei)t those against Roach 
 and Eap]), said Greene ai)peared to be the principal 
 manager or active assistant in the defences. 
 
 And deponent further says, that between the time 
 of the commencement of the action against Dohr- 
 mann and Peii)ho, which was on the — day of August, 
 ^'° 1864, and the commencement of this action, he has 
 made freipient inipiiries resi)ecting the i)ecuniary 
 condition of said Greene, with a view of commencing 
 acti(ms against him, but ahvays failed to ascertain 
 who the real party manufacturing said machine was, 
 or that said Greene would be able to resi)ond in any 
 damages, costs, or expenses which might be recovered 
 against him, that he conferred a nund)er of times 
 with the complainant on the subject, av ho said he 
 could not att'ord to i)rosecute said Greene, at the risk 
 ' ^^ of laying out the necessary moneys, without a reason- 
 able prosi)ect of getting it back, so long as the parties 
 using the machines were responsible and able to 
 pay. 
 
 And deponent further says, that he applied to the 
 clerk of this court for a subpo-na to bring J. A. Col- 
 ton before one of the United kStates Commissioners 
 to make the affidavit referred to in the affidavit of 
 the complainant, but said clerk declined, stating that 
 he had no authority to do so. 
 
 PETER VAN ANTWERP. 
 
 Sworn to before me, this 20th I 
 day day of November, 1875. S 
 Geo. F. Betts, 
 
 U. 8. Commissioner, 
 
it 
 
 United States of America, ) 
 
 Southern District of New York.) ' 181 
 
 Thomas Vaist Antwekp, beiug duly sworn, says, he 
 resides in Jersey City, in the State of New Jersey, 
 and is thirty-four years of age. That for iifteen 
 years last past he has been in the habit of making 
 himself familiar with machinery of various kinds 
 making drawings for x'atents and, assisting in pre- 
 paring applications for patents ; that he has also been 
 engaged in the kindling-wood business, using the 
 machine described in the re-issued Letters Patent 
 referred to in the bill of complaint in this action, and 182 
 is perfectly familiar with its construction and mode 
 of operation, and has been for upwards of ten years 
 last past. 
 
 That he has been familiar during all that time 
 with a variety of other wood splitting machines of 
 similar construction operating substantially in the 
 same manner, and among others one generally 
 known as the Greene machine, manufactured by one 
 Darwin A. Greene, of the City of New York. That 
 he is perfectly familiar with the construction of the .183 
 said so called Greene machine and its mode of oper- 
 ation. 
 
 And deponent further says, he has frequently seen 
 said machine last referred to in operation, splitting 
 blocks of wood into kindling wood ; that he has also 
 seen a correct model of it in this court, and especially 
 recollects its being used in evidence in the case of 
 Jacob A. Conover, the complainant in this action, 
 against Joseph Kohn and Samuel Kemmelstiel, in 
 which deponent was a witness for complainant, and 184 
 in which action there was a final decree entered 
 against the defendants on the 3d day of March, 1875, 
 for the use thereof ; that he saw and examined the 
 said machine so used by said Kohn and Kemmel- 
 stiel, and that said model correctly represents the 
 same. 
 
48 
 
 And deponent further says that, at the request of 
 
 185 the coiuphiiuant, he has examined a number of said 
 Greene machines, that they are constructed entirely 
 of iron, tliat upon a number of them he lias noticed 
 particularly there was cast on a part of tlie frame 
 work the following words, letters and figures, viz.: 
 " D. A. Greene, Pd. July V2, 1859, New York." 
 
 And deponent further says, that he has read a copy 
 of the Letters Patent granted to said 1). A. Greene 
 by the United States, bearing- date the day and year 
 last aforesaid, and that the only thing granted to said 
 
 186 Greene thereby related to the knives alone and to no 
 other part or portion of said machine. 
 
 And he further says, he has read a certified copy 
 of the re(u)rd of the proceedings in the matter of the 
 application for said Letters Patent ; that there were 
 two other claims besides the one for said knives in 
 said application, both of which were disallowed, and 
 as to the reason for the rejection of one of them said 
 Greene was referred by the Patent Office, among 
 other things, to the Letters Patent of the complain- 
 
 187 ant mentioned and referred to in this action. 
 
 A.nd deponent further says that on or about the 
 28th day of September last, he was duly deputed by 
 the United States Marshal for the Southern District 
 of New York to serve a number of parties, against 
 whom actions were commenced under said Letters 
 Patent of the complainant, with subpoenas to ai)pear 
 and answer in this Court. 
 
 That among the parties so to be served were sev- 
 eral residing in the State of New Jersey. That he 
 
 188 obtained information that the said parties were like- 
 ly to attend an adjourned meeting of wood dealers at 
 the Germania Assembly Rooms iu the Bowery, in the 
 City of New York, on the evening of said day. That 
 he accordingly went to said place on said evening 
 and served two of the parties. That he was in the 
 bar-room some time before the hour of said meetiBg, 
 
49 
 
 and saw there a considerable number of the wood 
 dealers known to him. 189 
 
 And deponent further says, that he has been ac 
 quainted with Darwin A. Greene, and has known him 
 for at least four or five years last past. That said 
 Greene was there attending said meeting; that upon 
 serving the processes on the parties as aforesaid they 
 immediately took them to said Greene, and all the 
 parties present gatliered around in consultation, he 
 being to all appearance, the centre and principal 
 manager of the assemblage. 
 
 And deponent further says, that learning said 190 
 Greene had recently located himself at the place of 
 business of H. S. Manning & Co., Ill Liberty street, 
 in the City of ISTew York, from whence he was sending 
 out circulars among the wood manufacturers, he went 
 to said i)]ace of business on the 27th day of October 
 last, and not finding said Greene in at the time, receiv- 
 ed from a person in charge of the office the annexed 
 circular. 
 
 And deponent further says, that shortly after the 
 decision of this court in said action against Dohr- ^gj^ 
 mann & Peipho, he saw machines for splitting wood 
 wliich he was informed and believes were constructed 
 by said Greene. That they were the same as the 
 one referred to in the opinion of Judge Shipman in 
 said action, except that the endless chain carriage 
 which carried and advanced the blocks forward to 
 the splitting knives, and the split wood away, was 
 shortened so that it extended forward only up to 
 the knives, and left the blocks upon said shortened 
 travelling carriage to force the blocks in front to the 
 knives, and the S])litting wood beyond them. 
 
 And depcraent further says, that subsequent to that 
 time he also saw and examined other machines for 
 splitting wood which he is informed and believes were 
 also constructed by said Greene, in which there were 
 the same endless chain carriage to carry and advance 
 the blocks to the knives or cutters, but that the 
 
 192 
 
60 
 
 cutters or knives were cliauged in form. lu- 
 
 193 stead of tlie slabbing- knife and series of otlier 
 knives as in the said Doluniann S: Peiplio njacliine, 
 and the other macliines liereinbelbre referred to, tliere 
 were Y sliaped knives or splitters. That they moved 
 vertically in.stead of horizontally, and that the bhicks 
 were placed on the endless carriage on their ends in- 
 stead of their sides, as in the said Dohrniann, and 
 Peipho and other niacinnes before referied to. 
 
 And deponent further says, he has examined the 
 cuts or illustrations in the circular Iiereto attached, 
 
 194 and before referred to, and recognizes the tirst cut or 
 illustration as a fair descri[)ti()n of the machine last 
 referred to. That as he understands the same, said 
 machine contains a bed on which the bloeks are split, 
 splitting knives oju'rated by a positive crank move- 
 ment to split them suitably for kindling-wood, a clear- 
 er ijlate which will strip oif any wood which may ad- 
 here to the knives, on their ujjwaid movement and 
 an endless chain carriage moving intcimittently, by 
 which the blocks are substantially carried and ad- 
 
 195 vanced to the action of the knives, and the split 
 wood discharged at the eml of the machine. And 
 deponent further says, that he has examined the 
 other cut or illustration in said circular, on tlie 
 second page, and designated as a " single knife sjilit- 
 ter, " ami understands its construction and mode of 
 operation. That said nnichiue has a bed on which 
 the blocks to be sjdit are held in a vertical direction, 
 a cutting or splitting knife, reciprocated by a positive 
 crank nn)vement, in a line with the grain of the 
 
 19() wond to be split, and a clearing plate to strip irom 
 the knife, in its ui)ward movement, any pieces of 
 wood which may adhere to it. 
 
 THOMAS VAN ANTWEIU'. 
 Sworn to before me this 20th 
 day of November, 1S7.1. 
 George F. Betts. 
 
 U. jS. Commissioner. 
 
51 
 
 United States of America, ) 
 
 Southern District ofJS'ew Yorlc. ) »l-9' 
 
 John H. Dohrmann, of the City of ISTew York, be- 
 ing duly sworn, says, lie is 50 years of age and np- 
 wards, and one of the firm ol Dohrmann and Peijjho, 
 kindling-wood dealers in said city. That he has been 
 engaged in said business for upwards of 15 years last 
 past at 558 West 24th sti-eet, in said city. That soon 
 after deponent and his copartner commenced said 
 business, the defendant Darwin A. Greeue rej^resented 
 to them that he had a machine for splitting wood, for 198 
 which he had obtained letters patent of the United 
 States, and indxTced deponent and his copartner to 
 purchase one, verbally agreeing to save them harm- 
 less from any claim of the complainant, Jacob A. 
 Oonover, under his patent of May 15th, 1855, for split- 
 ter. That upon the representations of said Greene 
 that his said machine was patented, and his prom- 
 ise to save them harmless and guarantee them against 
 said Conover, they purchased one machine from said 
 Greene, and used the same. That the machine was 299 
 constructed wholly of iron, and had cast upon one of 
 the plates of the frame, according to deponent's pre- 
 sent recollection the words and figures following, viz : 
 " D. A. Greene, Pd. July 12, 1859, New York." That 
 there was no mark, stamp, or any other designation 
 upon an\ part of the splitting knives or their connec- 
 tions showing that the same was patented, and that 
 deponent did not know that said patent of said Greene 
 related only to said knives until it was so shown in 
 a suit by said Conover against deponent and said qqq 
 Peipho, in which a judgment was rendered in this 
 Court against them for the use of said machine 
 and for which they were obliged to pay a large 
 amount of damages. And deponent further says 
 that after the recovery against them in said action, 
 deponent and said Peipho took a license from said 
 
52 
 
 complainant, and although they were permitted there- 
 20^ by to continue to use the same macliine, they dis- 
 continued tlie use thereof, and prociu'ed one of the 
 reguhir Couover splitter, having discovered that it 
 was greatly superior to the Greene machine, in that 
 it would do the work better was less liable to break or 
 get out of order, and produce better results. 
 
 And deponent further says that when the action 
 aforesaid was commenced against him and said Peii)ho, 
 he went to said Greene about it; that thereupon a 
 meeting of wood dealers was called, and said Greene 
 
 202 gave-hini notice of said meeting. Tliat at said meeting 
 and other sul)sequent meetings, money was raised for 
 defense, and that upwards of one thousand dollars 
 was raised aiul passed into the hands of said Greene 
 for the purpose of paying the legal expenses ; and 
 deponent furth;u' says that sul)se(iuently E. W. 
 Stoughton, Esq., was employed as counsel in said suit, 
 and deponent and said Peiplio were compelled to pay 
 in addition to their contribution to the said money 
 which was so passed to said Greene, upwards of $500, 
 
 203 and were afterwards sued for $500.00 in addition. 
 
 That they were advised by their counsel that tliey 
 could recover all their cost and expenses and damages 
 from said Greene, but that on incpu-ing they believed 
 that said Greene was unable to respond, and they 
 concluded to submit to their loss. 
 
 JOHN H. DOIIRMANN. 
 
 Sworn to before me, this .3d ) 
 day of November, 1875. y 
 
 204 u, E. Stillwell, 
 
 U, S. Co))tmisiiionc'r. 
 
m 
 
 United States of America, l . . 
 Southern District of Neiv York. > ^^' ' ^^^ 
 
 THEEOJf Kelsey, of the City of Brooklyn, County 
 of Kings, and State of New York, being duly sworn, 
 says, that he is 48 years of age, that he is engaged in 
 the kindling-wood business, and has been since the 
 month of July, 1863, in the City of Brooklyn, afore- 
 said. That when he was about starting the business 
 together with his copartners, comprising the firm of 
 Kelseys & Loughlan, desiring to obtain proper 
 machinery for the purpose of conducting the busi- 200 
 ness, he met Darwin A. Greene, the defendant, who 
 rejjresented to him that he had patented machinery 
 for splitting wood, which, to the best of his recollec- 
 tion, was claimed by Greene as being made under a 
 jjatent granted to said Greene by the United States, 
 as the administrator of some one, and that said 
 Greene agreed to protect deponent's said firm in the 
 use of said machine against all claimants, and es- 
 pecially against the complainant. 
 
 That he sold and delivered deponent's firm said qq^ 
 machine, that it was constructed wholly of iron, and 
 upon one of the plates constituting a portion of the 
 li-ame were cast the following words and figures, viz. : 
 "D. A. Greene, Pd. July 12th, 1859, New York." 
 And deponent further says, that some time after, 
 and in or about, the year 1869, he learned that the 
 complainant had recovered a judgment against 
 Dohrmann & Peipho of the City of New York, for 
 the use of a similar machine, and learning that said 
 defendant in this action was insolvent, they went to 
 the comijlainant and made arrangements with him, 
 and obtained from him a right to use said machine. 
 That they immediately abandoned the use of said 
 machine, and obtained from the comj)lainant one of 
 his regular wood-splitting machines, having discov- 
 ered that it was greatly superior to the Greene ma- 
 chine, in that it would do the work better, was less 
 
 208 
 
Hi 
 
 liable to get ont of order or break, and pro, luce bet- 
 209 ter results. 
 
 THERON KELSEY. 
 
 Sworn to before me, tins lOtli ) 
 day November, 1875. ) 
 
 Kenneth G. White, 
 
 U. S. Commissiouer, A:c. 
 
 United States of America, ) 
 Soutlteni District of New York. ) 
 
 210 Maktin Davies, of Hoboken, iu the State of New- 
 Jersey, being duly sworn, says be has been engaged 
 in mechanical i)ursuits for upwards of 20 years ; 
 that for the past four years and upwards h« has 
 been engaged in the business of manufacturing kind- 
 ling wood at Hoboken aforesaid, using for that i)urpose 
 during the first year, a machine made by the above 
 named defendant Darwin A. Greene; thatsaid machine 
 had cast upon one of the jdates constituting a part 
 of its frame the following words and figures, viz : "D. 
 
 21 1 A. Greene, Pd. July 12th, 185!), New York." That from 
 said inscription, and from information at the time of 
 purchasing, he fully believed said machine was patent- 
 ed by said Greene at the time designated on said 
 plate, and that said Greene had a lawful authority to 
 build such machines. 
 
 And deponent further says, that about the end of 
 said year he disposed of said machine and procured 
 what is known as the Conover splitter, a nuicliine con- 
 structed under the letters patent of the complainant, 
 2J2 Jiicob A. Conover, dated May loth, 1855, whicli has 
 been used by him ever since, and he has fouudit far 
 superior to the Greene machine, in that it is much less 
 liable to break or get out of order, and costs less for re- 
 pairs; that running at the same rate of speed it will 
 split more wood in the same length of time, and split 
 it much better. That said nuichiue has been, during 
 all said period, and still is located on what is known 
 
55 
 
 as the meadows at Hoboken aforesaid, a very soft soil 
 where tlie muck is at least 20 feet iu depth, and that 213 
 the only fouDdatiou on Avhich said splitter or ma- 
 chine rests, and has rested during all the time, is a 
 plank platform about 6 feet square, sui)j)orf ed only by 
 said soft soil,and deponent positively knows from act- 
 ual observation and experience during all said time, 
 not only that no solid foundation of stone, brick, or 
 other hard material is necessary for tlie support of 
 said machines but that an elastic support is preferable. 
 And deponent further says, that sometime about the 
 middle of Sei)tember last he received a notice request- 21 1 
 ing him to attend a meeting of kindling-wood dealers 
 at Gerniauia Assembly Eooms, in the Bowery, in the 
 City of ^' ew York ; that he attended there at the 
 appointed time ; that there were a coiisiderabla luim- 
 ber of wood deaL-rs present ; that the above named 
 defendant, Darwin A. Greene, was also preseiit and 
 took an active part in the meeting ; that the object 
 of said meeting was stated to be to organize an 
 association to act together and raise money to resist 
 the claims of said Oonover under his patent, and a 215 
 reqitest was made that all who were unwilling to 
 join in such resistauce shoitld retire; that said meeting 
 was adjourned for one week; that on the evening to 
 which such meeting was adjourned he went again to 
 said place, but not into the room Avhere the meeting 
 was to be held; that he there saw in the bar-room, in 
 said Germania Assembly Eoonjs building, the parties 
 who attended previously, and others, nnd especially 
 said Greene, who appeared to be the centre of the 
 consultation and conversation of the persons in 216 
 
 attendance. 
 
 MARTIN DAVIES. 
 
 Sworn to before me, this } 
 3d day of 'Nov., 1875. ^ 
 
 John A. Shields, 
 
 U. S. Commissioner, Southern Dist. of N. Y. 
 
56 
 
 United States of America 
 
 lERlCA > 
 
 ■Yorl-.r"-- 
 
 217 Southern Bistiict of New 
 
 William M adoule being duly sworn, says he resides 
 in the City of New York, ;nid is twenty-eight years 
 of age. Tliat he is an engineer, and has run engines 
 and had charge of niacliinery for ten years last past, 
 and during the larger part of ihat time, and for at 
 least eight years, of machinery for manufacturing 
 kindling-wood, in said city ; that for about four years 
 of lisat time lie run a machine for si)litting the wood 
 ^.„ known in tiie trade as the Greene machine, made by 
 Darwin A. (ireene, tlie altove named defendant, which 
 he alleged was so made under a ])ateut owned by 
 him, and on which machine was a ])late or stamp de- 
 signating that it was patented. 
 
 And deponent further says, that Nathan B. Cottrell, 
 in whose employ lie then was and still is, after about 
 four years use of said machine, disposed of it, and put 
 up what is known as the Conover machine, manufac- 
 tured under his patent of May oth, 1875, which has 
 been run by deponent for said Cottrell ever since. 
 
 That deponent turther says he has had the princi- 
 pal charge of said machines, and of attending to and 
 assisting in their i'ei)aiis. That tlie Greene machine 
 was much more liable to get out of order than the 
 Conover, and reciuired more reitairs and occasioned 
 umch greater loss of time. That the Conover ma- 
 chine, running at the same rate of speed, would split 
 more wood than the (4reene, turn and performed the 
 work a great deal better. 
 
 his 
 WILLIAM y, MADOULE. 
 mark 
 
 Sworn to before me this 2Stli } 
 day of October, 1874. i 
 
 Geo. F. Betts, 
 
 U.S. Continissiom'r, Southern Dint, of N". Y. 
 
 211) 
 
 220 
 
57 
 
 United States of America 
 Southern District of New Yoi 
 
 ft/J"'-^ 221 
 
 James W. Clakke, being duly sworn, says lie is 
 39 years of age; resides in tlie City of New York and 
 is engaged in the kindling-wood business in said city. 
 Tliat some time in the montli of October last he re- 
 ceived a printed notice or reciuest to attend a wood 
 dealers' meeting at (lerniania Assembly Kooms, in 
 said city but did not attend. That shortly after, and 
 on or about the first day of November last, there was 
 received at his place of business through the post of- 222 
 fice the foregoing annexed paper in an envelope and 
 directed to him. That he immediately wrote to Peter 
 Van Antwerp whose name appeared thereon as solic- 
 itor requesting iuformation as to the meaning there- 
 of. That said Van Antwerp called upon deponent 
 personally and was shown sucli paper, and at once 
 assured deponent that it had not been issued or sent 
 by him or Mr. Conover, and that no proceedings of 
 any kind had been instituted or taken against him 
 by Mr. Conover. 223 
 
 And deponent further says, that a few days after 
 said intervicAv with said Van Antwerp, said defend- 
 ant Greene and one Wilms, a wood dealer, called 
 upon deijonent and requested him to join a combina- 
 tion of wood dealers organized to defend all its mem- 
 bers against said Oonover's claims under his patent. 
 That they informed deponent said Conover had 
 commenced an action against him and a large num- 
 ber of others, and said addressingdeponent : "Youhave 
 " been served with papers through Conover and if 224 
 " yon will join our association and pay fifty dollars, 
 " we will take care of your case, as we have emj)loy- 
 " ed a lawyer to defend the members of the associa- 
 tion." Deponent replied that he did not knoAV he 
 had been served witli any papers by Conover, and 
 thev assured him he had, as they Iiad seen his name 
 
58 
 
 down on a list of persons against whom Conoverhad 
 225 coniinonced actions. 
 
 JAMES W. CLAKKE. 
 
 ISworii to before nie this 28tii 
 
 228 
 
 ,vorii to bc'tore nie this 28tii ) 
 day of Jan'y, I87(i. S 
 
 John A. Shiels, 
 r. S. CoDimissioucr, 
 S. I), of X. Y 
 
 22G 
 
 77/r rcsiihiits of Uic Ciiifi'd States of Amerkti to 
 ( ) Jmiirs ir. Clarh, 
 
 ( „^^^_^ ) (jREETIN(} : 
 
 You are hereby (■oiuiiKiiided, tliat yon personally 
 appear before the J ui lyes of the Cireiiit Court of the 
 United States of America, for the Southern Distriet of 
 New York, in tlie Second Circuit Court, in Ecpiity, on 
 the lirst Monday of Decend)er, A. I). 187"), wherever 
 the sai<l Court shall than be, to answer a bill of com- 
 plaint exhibited ayainst you in the said Court by .la- 
 cob A. ('onover, and to do further and,receive what the 
 said C(mrt shall have considered in that belialf, ami 
 this you are not to ouiit under the penalty on you of 
 two hundred and fifty dollars. 
 
 Witness, Hon. AVaite R. Morrison, Chief Justice of 
 the Supreme Court of the United States, at the City 
 
 of New York, on the 5th day of in the year one 
 
 thousand eight hundred and seventy five, and of the 
 indejtendence of the United States of America, the 
 one hundredth. 
 
 Peteh Van Antwehp. 
 
 335 Broaihray] 
 Complaiiiau ?'.s Solicitor. 
 
 Wirrn; (!. Kicnnktii. 
 
 Clerk. 
 
59 
 
 The (lefendant is required to enter appearance in 
 the above cause in the Clerk's office of this Court, 229 
 on or before the first Monday of December 1875, or 
 the bill will be taken pro confesso against him. 
 
 C. G. K. 
 
 Clerk. 
 
 United States of Amerkia } 
 Southern Distrivt of New York. S 
 
 Petek Vast Antwekp, Solicitor for complainant in 
 this action, being- duly sworn, says he has read the 230 
 foregoing affidavit of James W. Clarke, and examined 
 the paper thereto aimexed purporting to l)e a sub- 
 poena to ap]»ear and answer, issued out of this court. 
 That no such pai)er ever was signed or issued by depo- 
 nent, or at his instance, or by his knowledge, nor 
 was ever any bi'l of complaint or subpcena issued 
 in any such action at the suit of Jacob A. Conover. 
 
 And deixmeiit further says that he has had his at- 
 tention called to, and has seen several other i^apers 
 of precisely tlie same character, which he was in- 231 
 formed by the parties named therein had been re- 
 ceived by them through the post oflice, neither of 
 which had been issued by him or through his instru- 
 mentality or by his knowledge although all had his 
 name attached as solicitor for the complainant. 
 
 And deponent further says that he has had i^er- 
 sonal interviews with four different parties who had 
 received such papers. 
 
 And was informed by each of them that shortly 
 before receiving the same he had been called upon 232 
 by one or more persons representing themselves to 
 1)6 members or committeemen of an association com- 
 bined to defeat the claims of tiie complainant under 
 his letters patent for a wood si)litting machine 
 (among the names so mentioned were Darwin A. 
 Greene, John H. Eapp, F. Frith, and F. Myers), and 
 
60 
 
 each had declined or neglected to join such com- 
 233 biuatiou or contribute to its funds, and deponent 
 verily believes that such pretended process was sent 
 to said parties thi-ough the instrumentalitj' of such 
 combination, for the puri)ose of inducing them to 
 join such combination and contribute to its funds. 
 
 PETEK VAN ANTWERP. 
 
 Sworn to before me, this 2d ) 
 day of Febuary, 1876. ) 
 
 JoHX A. Osborne, 
 "^ ' V. S. Commissioner. 
 
 235 
 
 236 
 
LIBRFIRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 017 180 369 fl » 
 
\ 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 017 180 369 A