In 1847, Robert G. Eunson of New York was assigned a patent for a matcher; this was at a time when making such a machine was very risky because of the litigiousness of the Woodworth planer cartel. We do not have any compelling evidence that Eunson ever manufactured the matcher.

In 1854, Eunson and John Myers, also of New York, patented an ingenious machine for sawing thin boards. The basic idea is that the saw-blade was thin at the periphery to avoid wasting stock. The side of the blade facing the baulk of timber was flat, and the other side thickened toward the center of the blade. The thin cut-off stock was bent away from the curved side of the blade by a splitter. The machine was very successful. Myers & Eunson manufactured the machine for many years and the patent was extended for an additional seven years beyond the original fourteen. Myers died in 1870, while the machine was still in production. Eunson died in 1896, age 90.

The Myers and Eunson patent was licensed to some other people. Who, exactly, manufactured machines based on their patent is a subject for further research.

Information Sources

• Robert G. Eunson was granted or assigned several patents.
• RE: patent 10,965: According to information given in the lawsuit described below,
  • On 1864-10-19 the inventors assigned to Eben Peek and Gilbert J. Bogert all their interest in the patent for that part of the city of New York west of Broad to Eighth Avenue, and through the Eighth avenue to the northerly limits of the city.
  • On 1868-05-20, co-inventor Robert G. Eunson assigned his share of the patent and the subsequent extension to Eugene S. Eunson.
  • On 1868-05-23, the co-inventors and Robert G. Eunson assigned to Peek and Bogert all their interest for such territory to the extended term.
  • On 1866-09-12, Myers assigned to Jacob Lagowitz all his patent rights for the state of New Jersey.
  • On 1868-06-19 Myers assigned to Lagowitz those same rights for the extended term.

  One of the improvements is what we now call a splitter, for reducing friction on the sawblade and preventing the kerf from being enlarged by warping of the sawn stock.

  According to the 1873 "Subject-matter index of patents for inventions issued by the United States Patent Office", this patent was granted an extension.

  The patentees sued "Edward Simm and others" after the defendants purchased and used a machine that infringed this patent. After using that machine for nine months in their business to saw boards for the manufacture of trunks, they were notified of the infringement. They ceased using the infringing machine and were assessed damages of $1200, which was the standard license fee charged by the inventors. The defendants argued that paying the damages granted them a license to continue to use the infringing machine. The court ruled against the defendants.

  In May 1871, Judge J. Blatchford, of the Southern District of New York, heard several cases related to this patent: Margaret Myers (executrix of John Myers), Eugen S. Eunson, Eben Peek, and Gilbert J. Bogert v. John Frame et al; Myers et al. v. John Dunbar, et al.; Myers et al. v. Joseph H. Swift; and Eugene S. Eunson et al. v. Thomas B. Peddie. All four cases involved alleged infringement on this patent. The patent covers a resawing machine for thin boards, as used for mirror backs, picture-frame backs, etc. The machine uses a veneer saw, which is a thin segmented saw with a thin periphery and thicker central portion, the center portion usually being a separate piece to which the segmented periphery pieces are attached on one side of the center portion. The newly cut veneer or thin board passes on the side that has the central plate protruding, and the billet from which the veneer was cut passes on the flat side of the sawblade assembly. The machine has a complex stockfeeding mechanism with rollers that yield to acommodate different thicknesses of stock while holding one side of the stock in a fixed relation to the sawblade so as to saw a consistent thickness. The Frame machine (Frame being one of the defendants) was similar in construction except that the rollers only yielded in one direction. It was found to still infringe the patent. The Dunbar and Hopper machines, while somewhat different in detail, similarly infringed. The defendant Swift was using a machine manufactured by the Huntington Machine Co. of Newark, NJ, and this machine yet again was found to infringe. Swift tried to claim prior art in the form of, among others, the Andrews and Sproat patent, 1,457 and the Crosby patent, 8,022, but the judge noted that the first patent used only one deflecting plate and yet the subsequent Crosby patent used an alaborate means to relieve the saw on both sides at once and did not hit on the idea of using two deflecting plates. "The use of them was not obvious in such a amachine as the plaintiffs'." Daniel Doncaster was claimed to have made a two-plate saw, but the judge found no evidence that he did so before Myers and Eunson did. The judge did note that the original Myers and Eunson patent claimed also the use of one deflecting plate, but that was anticipated by the Andrews and Sproat patent. Myers and the Eunsons had already disclaimed that specific claim, and the judge said that once the other plaintiffs had also done so, he would issue decrees in favor of the plaintiffs.

• Trow's New York City Directory for the Year Ending May 1, 1861 lists "Eunson Robert G. engineer, h 47 Bank"; the address of 47 Bank was his home address. There is no indication of his work address or his employer (if any).
• The British "Alphabetical Index of Patentees and Applicants for Patents of Invention for the Year 1860", lists John Eunson as having been granted a patent on 1860-01-13 for "Refrigerating apparatus"; the patent was "Communicated by Robert Groat Eunson". Another source lists the inventor (John) as being from Wolverhampton.
• 1868 ad for the "Wolverhampton Clay Retort Works / Established 1840 / John Eunson and Son, Gas Engineers, &c. ..." Based on information in Robert G. Eunson's obituary (below), John Eunson is Robert G.'s older brother.
• From the 1896-05-31 issue of the New York Times:

  Robert Groat Eunson

  Robert Groat Eunson, ninety years old, died yesterday at the house of his son, Robert G. Eunson, 28 West Sixty-fourth Street. Old age was the cause of death.

  Mr. Eunson was a constructing engineer whose life work appears in the improvements made in marine engines. He was a native of the Orkney Islands, and came to this country sixty-five years ago. Since that time he has resided almost continuously in New-York.

  When Ericsson conceived the Monitor Eunson made the model for it. It is about three feet in length, and is to be seen at the home of the younger son of the deceased, Eugene S. Eunson, 128 West Twelfth Street. Mr. Eunson was also consulting engineer in the construction of the Monitor, and, with Almon Stimers, the engineer of the new vessel, arranged the machinery in it.

  Improvements and inventions that are the work of Mr. Eunson are to be found aboard every ship that uses a marine engine—improved surface condensers, cut-offs, couplings, and governing valves are among them.

  Mr. Eunson was a large man, with a powerful physique. A photograph of him at the age of eighty-five years shows a bright-eyed, erect, stalwart man, with bushy hair and beard. His last invention, which has not yet come into general use, was patented seven years ago.

  An elder brother of the deceased, John Eunson, was the engineer who introduced gas in London, England.

  The decased leaves a wife, Hannah, eighty-five years old, and two sons, Robert G. and Eugene S., and several grandchildren. There will be a private funeral service... Burial will be in the family plot at Greenwood Cemetery. At one time Robert Groat Eunson was a member of many societies, but the one one to which he belonged at the time of his death was the Naval Institute of Annapolis.