Oct,  i,  1892.]  THE  TROPICAL  AGRICULTURIST.  267 
Mr.  Justice  Lawrie  asked  what  cases  there  were 
in  support  of  this  assertion  ; but  Mr.  Wendt  replied 
that  this  was  not  contested.  A man  could  not  adopt 
another  man’s  patent  for  the  purpose  of  bringing 
out  his  improvement.  Yet,  after  saying  the  Triple 
Action  was  an  improvement  on  the  plaintiff’s  im- 
provement, the  learned  Judge  went  on  to  give  judg- 
ment in  favour  of  the  defendants.  He  would  now 
like  to  make  a short  reference  to  some  of  the  au- 
thorities on  the  subject.  As  he  had  said  in  opening, 
on#  had  to  look  very  closely  to  the  specifications,  as  there 
they  found  what  was  the  nature  of  the  invention 
and  what  was  patented,  and,  for  convenience  sake,  if 
their  lordships  would  permit  him,  he  would  refer  to 
a text-book,  namely,  Johnson’s  Patentees’  Manual, 
page  161,  and  following  pages.  ThetwocaseB  to  which 
he  specially  wished  to  direct  attention  were  both 
cases  in  which  the  Master  of  the  Rolls  had  given  his 
opinion.  One  was  the  case  of  Hicks  vs.  the  Safety 
Lighting  Co.  (Law  Reports,  4 Chancery  Division 
p.  670),  and  the  other  was  the  case  of  Clark  vs.  Adie 
(2  Appeal  Cases,  p.  423).  In  these,  the  remarks  were 
directed  to  showing  how  a specification  should  be 
looked  at  in  ascertaining  what  was  meant  by 
a patentee.  This  brought  him  to  the  specifications,  and 
here  he  would  suggest  an  adjournment  for  luncheon 
if  their  lordships  did  not  object. 
This  was  agreed  to,  and  the  Court  adjourned  for 
half-an-  hour. 
On  resumption  Mr.  Wendt  said  there  was  one  other 
case  he  meant  to  cite,  namely,  the  action  Proctor  vs. 
Bennis  (Law  Reports,  36  Chancery  Division,  p.  751). 
He  then  went  at  some  length  into  the  plaintiff’s 
specification,  and  contended  that  what  was  meant  by 
the  case  was  something  more  than  the  mere  wooden 
portion  to  which  the  District  Judge  had  restricted  it. 
Then  finally  came  the  claim  of  the  invention  which 
began  with  a sort  of  disclaimer.  What  they  considered 
novel  and  original  was,  first,  the  arrangement  which  was 
the  subject  of  that  action,  and,  second,  the  arrangement 
for  turning  over  the  jacket  B to  give  ready  access 
to  the  upper  rolling  surface.  Was  there  any  arrange- 
ment described  for  turning  over  the  wooden  lining 
simply  ? The  words  used  were  “ turning  over  the 
jacket  B.”  There  could  not  be  a doubt  that  what 
was  intended  was  the  whole  case  or  jacket,  as  the 
plaintiff  contended.  Much  had  been  said  as  to  the 
location  of  the  distinguishing  letters  in  the  drawings, 
but  a careful  study  of  the  specifications  showed  ex- 
actly what  parts  were  referred  to.  Looking  at  the 
specifications  and  well  weighing  all  he  had  adduced, 
he  hoped  the  Court  would  say  the  case  or  jacket 
was  all  they  claimed  for  it,  and  that  their  principle 
had  been  adopted  by  the  defendants,  which  act  on 
their  part  was  an  infringement  entitling  plaintiff  to  a 
verdict  on  that  one  issue  alone. 
Counsel  then  resumed  his  seat,  after  speaking  for 
about  three  hours. 
THE  REPLY. 
In  response,  Mr.  Dodwell  Browne  said  he  ap- 
peared with  his  friends  Mr.  Dornhorst  and  Mr.  Loos 
on  behalf  of  the  defence,  and  they  had  now  drifted 
so  far  away  from  the  question  of  the  pleadings  with 
which  his  learned  friend  opened  his  case  that  it  would 
be  perhaps  well  for  him  to  follow  his  latest  line 
first,  and,  much  as  he  admired  the  lucidity  of  the 
address  which  his  learned  friend  had  mad# 
to  their  lordships,  he  ventured  to  say  that 
he  had  not  louoheu  upon  the  real  point  in  the  case. 
The  plaintiff  had  come  into  the  Court  and  by  his 
counsel  he  had  said  he. claimed  a patent  right  which 
was  the  arrangement  of  transmitting  motion  to  a 
certain  thing  in  a certain  way  for  a certain  result. 
He  did  not  think  his  learned  friend  had  touched  at 
all  in  his  address  on  the  transmission  of  motion,  and 
yet  when  they  came  to  look  at  his  first  olaim  of 
novelty  they  found  these  words : — “ I claim  an  arrange- 
ment of  transmitting  motion  to  the  top  rolling  Bur- 
face  through  the  case  or  jacket  surrounding  it, 
whereby  the  top  rolling  surface  is  left  free  as  regards 
vertical  movement  from  the  mechanism  operating 
it,”  and,  naturally,  there  came  to  their  minds  five 
questions “ What  is  the  motion  transmitted}  what 
ja  the  top  rolling  surface ; what  is  the  oase  or  jacket; 
what  is  the  mechanism  operating  it.  and  what  is 
your  arrangement  for  transmitting  that  motion?”  His 
learned  friend  had  dealt  with  several  of  these,  but  he  did 
think  he  had  dealt  with  them  all.  He  thought  he 
might  agree  with  him  in  saying  that  one 
of  the  largest  was  “ What  is  the  case  or  jacket,”  but, 
to  determine  that,  they  had  to  look  into  certain  me- 
chanical principles,  and  they  had  to  search  thoroughly 
into  the  plaintiff’s  specification  and  determine  thereon 
as  to  what  was  the  esse  or  jaoket,  and  What  was  not  ? 
Now,  there  was  one  point  on  which  he  agreed  with 
the  other  side.  It  was -.  qua  the  plaintiff,  the  Court  had 
to  attend  to  bis  specification,  but  there  wa#  one  point 
on  which  ha  disagreed  with  him,  and  that  was,  qua  the 
defendant  the  court  had  to  attend  to  his  specification. 
The  whole  of  the  plaintiff’s  case  against  the  defendants 
was  a sporting  action  resting  on  one  man’s  writing  #f 
a principle  in  defendant’s  specification.  Mr.  Wendt 
bad  rung  the  changes  over  and  over  again  on  the  im- 
partisg  of  the  motion  to  the  upper  rolling  (urface  by 
the  cylinder  surrounding  it  whereaB  it  ought  to  have 
been  imparting  the  motion  to  the  top  rolling  surface 
of  the  cylinder  surrounding  it.  He  submitted  he  was 
not  to  be  judged  by  what  he  had  written,  but  by  what 
be  had  done.  If  he  had  made  a machine  that  in- 
fringed the  plaintiff’s  patent  it  was  immaterial  if  ha 
wrote  a word  or  not  and  if  he  had  only 
written  an  idea  of  a machine,  if  he  had  not  a 
specification  for  it  he  had  not  infringed 
his  patent.  Infringing  was  an  aot,  and  though  he 
believed  a specification  might  be  read  against  a man 
for  the  purpose  of  prejuriioe  to  a certain  extent,  it 
would  not  really  affect  the  issue,  for  the  issue  was 
what  had  he  done  in  fact  not  what  had  he  written  ; 
what  had  he  made  ; not  what  he  had  designed  ; what 
had  he  sent  to  the  whole  country  the  use  of  which 
had  limited  the  sale  of  Mr.  Jaokson’s  machines? 
The  Chief  Justice  could  not  accept  the  last  re* 
mark  ; it  was,  what  had  defendants  done  ; had  they 
worked  up  plaintiff’s  machine  in  some  other  shape 
and  served  it  out  to  his  disadvantage? 
Mr.  Browne  agreed.  Now  the  plaintiff  had  gone 
iuto  this  case  and  he  mu6t  say  he  was  amused  at 
one  of  the  last  arguments  of  oounsel  who  had  said 
it  was  a question  of  specification  and  that  the  judge 
need  not  have  gone  into  the  evidence.  Why  plain- 
tiff called  witness  after  witness  into  the  box  and 
examined  them  as  to  whether  the  defendant’s  inven- 
tion constituted  an  infringement  or  not  defendants 
also  called  evidenoe  on  this  point  and  when  the 
Court  came  to  attend  to  that  evidence  he  had  no 
doubt  it  would  decide  that  the  evidence  of  the  plain- 
tiff and  his  witness  mast  be  taken  with  a good  deal 
of  discount  after  the  cross-examination  for  that  ad- 
duced ou  behalf  of  the  defence  was  indisputably  of 
a surperior  character.  Let  them  start  at  the  point 
Mr.  Withers  did.  Somewhere  in  the  seventies  the 
Standard  machine  came  to  Ceylon  and  was  imported 
to  Loolecondera  estate,  and  no  patent  was  taken  out 
or  it.  The  model  of  the  machine  came  into  the 
Court  bearing  a lid  with  the  inscription  that  it  was 
Jackson’s  tea  rolling  maohine  and  plaintiff  stood  up 
in  the  District  Court  and  swore  on  his  oath  that 
he  had  invented  the  machine.  Then  at  the  Court  he 
saw  on  defendants’  model  of  the  same  maohine 
“Kinmond’s  Patent’’  and  he  went  to  Loolecondera 
and  got  the  name  plate  from  the  maohine,  when  it 
turned  out  that  the  machine  was  not  Jackson’s ; it 
was  Kiomond’s  with  a few  minor  improvements 
madejby  Jackson  and  these  improvements  involved  him 
in  litigation  with  Kinmond  which  resulted  in  his 
having  to  get  Kinmond's  license;  so  that  Mr.  Jack] 
son  when  he  wanted  to  come  into  the  Court  as  an 
inventor  had  to  be  disallowed  the  credit  as  far  as 
that  machine  was  concerned.  The  Standard  was  a 
purely  rectilinear  machine.  Undoubtedly  scientific 
books  told  them  that  circular  motion  might  be  always 
resolved  into  its.  two  component  parts ; but  the 
separate  parts  of  it  made  two  rectilinear  lines.  Mr. 
Jackson  took  objection  to  this  machine,  as  had  been 
stated,  and  so  he  altered  his  machine  completely  and 
discarded  the  old  process.  Then  came  the  question 
of  what  was  the  jaoket,  and  here  the  defendants 
claimed  that  the  wooden  lining  was  the  jacket,  in 
