April i, 1889.] THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 
CLEANING PAECHMBNT COFFEE IN 
LONDON. 
Colonial Secretary's Office, Colombo, 25th Feb. 1889. 
Sie, — With reference to my letter of the 21st June 
last, I am directed to transmit to you a further copy 
of a despatch from the Secretary of State for the 
Colonies forwarding a letter from Messrs. Lewis and 
Peat on the subject of cleaning parchment coffee in 
London. — I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
A. M. ASHMORE, for Colonial Secretary. 
(Circular) Downing Street, 10th January 1S89. 
Sir, — In continuation of my circular despatch of the 9th 
of May last, I have the honour to transmit to you, 
for publication, a copy of a letterfrom the Royal Gardens, 
Kew, enclosing a copy of a further letter from Messrs. 
Lewis and Peat, on the subject of cleaning parchment 
coffee in London.— I have the honor to be, sir, your most 
obedient humble servant, Knutsford. 
Kew Gardens to Colonial Office. 
Royal Gardens, Kew, 21st December, 1886. 
Sir,— In continuation of my letters of 11th April and 23rd 
April of this year, I am desired by Mr. Thiselton Dyer 
to forward a copy of a further letter received from Messrs. 
Lewis and Peat, on the subject of cleaning parchment coffee 
in London. 
2. It appears that, acting on the suggestions contained 
in the letters above quoted, which Lord Knutsford was 
good enough to communicate to the Governors of the 
West Indian and other Colonies interested in the pro- 
duction of coffee, shipments of coffee in parchment have 
been made, and, as regards Jamaica coffee, have pro- 
duced very encouraging results. A small shipment made 
from Dominica has not proved so satisfactory, as the 
parchment coffee in the first instance was not sufficiently 
dried before it was shipped. The brokers draw parti- 
cular attention to the fact that imperfectly dried ship- 
ments are useless,— I am, &c, (Signed) D. Morris. 
Edward Wingfield, Esq. 
Messrs. Lewis and Peat to Royal Gardens, Kew. 
6, Mincing Lane, E. C, 20th December, 1888. 
Dear Sir, — We beg to draw your attention to the I sale 
of Some Jamaica coffee sent home in the parchment 
and cleaned here, and recommend it to the notice of 
shippers generally. 
The parcel D-nr. per " Nile" sold as follows : — 
5 bags bold colory at 90s per cwt. 
5 ,, medium-size colory at S7s ,, 
1 „ small at 76s „ 
1 ,, peaherry at 81s , f 
which is very encouraging result. 
We also sold two bags Dominica, but the coffee was not 
sufficiently dried on the other side, bringing only 76s per 
cwt. Imperfectly dried shipments are useless. — We are, &c, 
(Signed) Lewis & Peat. 
D. Morris, Esq., Royal Gardens, Kew. 
TRADE -MARK LAW :— TOWER TEA. 
An important decision in regard to trade names 
was given in the Chancery Division of the High 
Court of Justice on Tuesday, by Mr. Justice North. 
The case was the Great Tower Street Tea Com- 
jjany v. Hedley Smith, and the evidence submitted 
occupied the Court for 11 days. The question at 
issue had reference to the use of the title 
" Tower " as applied to packed teas. The plaintiff 
company were incorporated by registration in 1879 
to take over the business in the sale of picket 
tea of Messrs. Lough & Walker, of 41 Great 
Tower Street. They alleged that shortly after that 
time their tea became known as, and has ever 
since been recognised as, " Tower Tea." In 3885 
they registered two trade-marks — one for tea and 
coffee, consisting of the design of a tower or 
castle, with the word " Strength " connected with 
it and surrounded by the name of the company 
in a garter ; the other simply of the two words 
" Tower Tea." The defendant is the successor 
to a tea business carried on, first at Muscovy 
Court by one Holland, later at Harp LaDe. This 
business was commenced in 1878. Since the po- 
tion was brought the defendant has moved his 
packet business to Leadcnhall Street and his loose 
tea business to Fenchurch Street. Tho words 
"Tower Tea Company" had been used in con- 
nection with the defendant's business by both 
himself and his predecessors. The plaintf'!' 
company attempted to make out that the de- 
fendant had either never had, or had lost his 
right to use, the title " Tower Tea Company," 
and that he had so used it as to pass his goods 
off as their goods, and claimed an injunc- 
tion to restrain his using that style, using the 
fancy name of "Tower Tea," or passing his goods 
off as those of the plaintiff company ; and the 
defendant moved to erase from the register of 
trade -marks the plaintiffs' registered trade-mark 
of "Tower Tea" on the ground that it was not 
subject-matter capable of registration within the 
Patents, Designs ; and Trade Marks Act, 1883. 
It was attempted on behalf of the plantiffs to 
bring the mark within marks allowed to be regis- 
tered as enumerated in section 64, subsection 1 
(c) of the Act, — namely, "A distinctive device, 
mark, brand, heading, label, ticket, or fancywords 
not in common use." No objection was taken to 
the other registered trade-mark of the plantiffs. 
Mr. Aston, q.c, and Mr. Carpmael appeared 
for the plantiffs , and Mr. Napier Higgins, q.c., 
and Mr. Solomon for the defendant. 
Mr. Justice North, in giving judgment, said it 
would be most convenient in the first place to 
deal with the motion. Mr. Carpmael had argued 
that the expression was a "fancy word" within the 
meaning of the subsection. Upon this point his 
lordship cited the definitions of " fancy words " given 
by the several Lords Justices, Cotton, Lindley, and 
Lopes in the leading cases on the subject (" Re 
Van Duzer's Trade-mark," 34 Ch.D., 623,) re- 
lating to the word " Melrose" as applied to a 
" Hair Restorer" ; the word " Electric" as applied 
to " Velveteen," and adopted by Lord Justice 
Fry in a still more recent case. Lord Justice 
Cotton said in respect of a fancy word :— " It 
must be a word which obviously cannot have 
reference to any description or designation of 
where the article is made or what its character 
is. Lord Justice Lopes said : — " I think a word, 
to be a fancy word, must be obviously meaning- 
less as applied to the article in question." Mr. 
Justice North considered both from the nature of 
the case, and the evidence before him as to the 
use of the word " Tower" in respect to other 
articles sold in the neighbourhood and other kinds 
of business carried on in the same neighbour- 
hood the word " Tower" was obviously descriptive ; 
and therefore "Tower Tea" was not a fancy 
word. The motion, therefore, to have the trade- 
mark expunged must succeed. As to the action, 
his Lordship came to the conclusion on the evi- 
dence that the defendant and his predecessors 
had bona-jlde used the trade-mark before the 
plaintiffs ; that he had never used it for the 
purpose of passing off his goods a3 those of the 
plaintiffs ; and that, in fact, whatever he might 
have thought without evidence, the evidence clearly 
established, to his mind, that the two names 
were not likely to be confused by purchasers ; 
and he dismissed the action with costs, and 
allowed costs on the higher scale. — Chemist and 
Druggist, Feb. 2nd. 
H 
int: 
A. HERTZ & CO.'S REVIEW OF 
TEA MARKET FOR 1888. 
Tins is a very comprehensive broadsheet giving' 
tho years histoy of the different qualities of China 
tens, and of Indian, Ceylon and Java kiiltis, wiiu 
monthly details of imports, sales, prices, &c. The lowest, 
price for Chiua is frequently quoted nl what must be 
the entirely unremurierative tifrure of Sjd. per lb. 
