268 
THE  TROPICAL  AGRICULTURIST. 
[Oct.  i,  1892. 
that  it  was  entirely  a separate  part  from  the  lower 
portion  of  the  machine,  which  was  the  connecting 
rod.  The  under  part  was  a part  of  the  mechanism 
of  the  machine  and  was  necessary  for  the  suppression 
of  circular  into  rectilinear  motion.  Passing  on, 
counsel  drew  the  attention  of  the  Court  to  the  fact 
that  the  model  was  not  in  accordance  with  the 
drawing  of  the  machine,  where  the  bow  bracket  did 
not  spring  from  the  connecting  rod  as  in  the  model 
but  from  the  wooden  portion  ; while  lie  asked  the 
Court  to  remember  that  in  the  Court  below  the 
plaintiff  distinctly  disclaimed  the  transmission  of  any 
motion  whatever  to  the  top  rolling  surface  by  means  of 
the  spindle,  so  that  his  method  of  transmitting  motion 
which  he  patented  did  not  include  that.  The  next 
point  was  what  motion  did  the  plaintiff  give  to  his 
top-rolling  surface ; it  was  by  leaving  it  loose  and 
letting  it  lie  an  inert  weight  inside  the  box.  There 
was  no  motion  through  the  spindle.  It  was  a 
motion  of  impact;  the  motion  of  a tea  in  a 
thimble;  or  of  a dice  in  a box.  The  Excelsior 
was  a rectilinear  machine  which  began  with  a circular 
motion  which  was  afterwards  suppressed  to  rectilinear 
to  make  a circular  roll.  It  began  with  a single 
aotion  which  resolved  itse'f  to  two  to  go  back  again 
to  one.  The  Triple  Action  on  the  otli-r  hand  began 
with  three  and  worked  out  a triple  quotient  in  the 
end.  The  machines  were  entirely  different  in  desigu 
and  entirely  different  in  the  arrangement-  of  trans- 
mitting motion  because  in  the  Excelsior  the  motion 
was  transmitted  from  the  side  of  the  jacket  by  im- 
pact, whereas  in  the  Triple  Action  it  war 
all  transmitted  through  the  6pindle.  If  he  made 
a mark  with  any  one  part  of  the  p’ainitffs 
machine  while  in  working  the  result  would  be  a straight 
line;  but  with  defendants’  machine  all  parts  would 
describe  a cirole-  This  he  thought  brought  him  to  the 
end  of  his  argument  ; but  he  should  like  to  say 
a word  about  the  skilled  evidence  they  had  brought 
forward  ; and  counsel  went  on  to  refer  at  some  length 
to  the  evidence  given  by  Mej  r Day  and  L‘.  Brown, 
reading  long  portions  of  their  evidence.  In  the  course 
of  this  the  question  of  driving  aod  driven  machinery 
again  came  up,  and  the  Chief  Justice  got  in  a 
difficulty  in  regard  to  the  subject.  To  help  in  the 
matter  he  asked  whether  a horse  in  a carriage  would 
be  described  as  driven  or  driving,  viewing  the  whole 
as  a machine  ? 
Mr.  Browne  replied  that  the  horse  would  be  the 
motive  power,  and  the  wheels  of  the  carriage  part  of  the 
driving  machinery. 
The  Chief  Justice: — I am  talking  about  the  horse. 
Mr.  Browne: — Well,  take  a leg  off  the  horse. 
(Laughter.) 
The  Chief  Justice  further  instanced  a riksha 
man  pushing  a riksha  backwards,  and  Mr.  Browne 
repeated  that  the  man  would  be  the  motive  power. 
The  Chief  Justice,  laughingly  remarked  that  all 
this  was  very  interesting ; iudeed,  he  did  not  know 
when  be  had  been  so  interested  before. 
Mr.  Browne  replied  that  the  ease  was  one  that  if 
they  once  went  into  detail  there  was  no  saying 
where  they  would  end.  The  great  thing  aimed  at 
by  plaintiff,  he  contended,  was  to  have  his  upper 
surface  free  as  regarded  vertical  movement  from  the 
mechanism  operating  it.  It  was  so  settled  in  his 
specification  but  was  not  stated  so  in  the  libel.  On 
the  other  hand,  defendants’  machine  was  not  free  in 
this  respect,  but  got  all  its  motion  that  way.  They 
had  adhered  to  Kinmond ; but  plaintiff  had  dis- 
carded Kinmond.  Jackson  in  trying  to  fasten  the 
liability  of  infringement  on  them  had  left  out  the 
very  pith  and  marrow  of  bis  claim  as  set  forth  in 
his  specification.  As  regarded  points  of  law  he  had 
left  these  to  his  friend  Mr,  Dornhorst  who  would  if 
necessary  speak  to  them. 
The  Chief  Justice  said  he  could  not  hear  two 
counsel ; npon  whioh  Mr.  Browne  referred  the  Conrt 
to  the  judgment  in  the  case  of  Curtis  vs.  Piatt,  and, 
then  briefly  recapitulating  his  points,  he  gave  way  to 
Mr.  Wendt  who  briefly  replied.  On  the  point  of 
whether  there  was  a case  against  Mr.  A.  Brown, 
oounsel  stated  that  ho  had  admitted  he  was  re- 
ceiving a benefit  from  tie  making  and  selling  of  the 
Triple  Action  Holler.  On  the  other  points  he  urged 
Mr.  Browne  had  not  met  tho  case  plaintiff  put  for- 
ward. As  to  the  motion  of  the  machine  it  did  not 
matter  if  it  was  c'rcular  or  rootilii  ear  ; if  the  defen- 
dants acquired  motion  through  the  cose  or  jacket 
they  had  infringed,  and  he  urged  that  they  did  so 
acquire  motion  and  that  consequently  they  were  liable. 
As  to  the  fact  that  their  machine  would  work  if  the 
cy  indcr  was  removed,  defendant  said  their  cylinder 
was  supported  by  horns  and  gudgeons,  but  in  re- 
moving the  cylinder  they  did  rot  remove  these  hornB 
and  gudgeons,  but  they  were  as  much  a part 
of  the  cylinder  as  the  bearing.  Defendants  had  also 
fonght  to  amend  their  specification  on  tlis  subject  of 
the  ecccenlrie  motion  impaited  by  the  cylinder. 
They  said  cow  it  should  be  of  the  cylinder  ; bat  he 
contended  that  “by"  was  meant  and  was  not  im- 
properly used.  The  case  of  Curtis  and  Platt  he 
admitted  was  good  law,  but  did  not  throw  much 
light  on  the  case. 
The  Chief  Justice  remarked  that  judgment  could 
not  be  given  for  some  time,  as  be  had  to  go  on 
circuit,  but  he  asked  that  tho  models  might  be  sent 
to  bis  house  to  look  iuto  them  carefully  with  his 
brother  Laivrie,  remarking  facetiously  that  they  might 
induce  them  to  alter  their  professions  and  to  give 
up  the  law  for  engineering.  Tho  case  was  closed 
after  lasting  nearly  five  hours. 
DECISION  OF  THE  SUPREME  COURT. 
Mr.  Jackson  Wins. 
In  the  Supreme  Court  on  13th  September,  judgment 
was  given  in  the  appeal  in  the  Tea  Roller  patent 
case  in  favour  of  Mr.  Jackson. 
THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE  S VIEW. 
The  Chief  Justice  said: — As  might  be  expected 
actions  of  this  kind  for  infringement  of  patent  are 
of  very  infrequent  occurrence  in  Ceylon,  and  it 
cannot  but  be  a matter  of  consolation  to  us  to 
know  that  whatever  judgment  we  may  arrive  at  is 
subject  to  appeal  to  the  Privy  Council,  and  if  we 
are  wrong  we  may  be  set  right  at  the  instance  of 
either  party.  It  is  useless  for  ns  to  burthen  our 
judgment  with  any  recital  from  the  pleadings.  The 
parties  at  the  trial  agreed  upon  the  issues  which 
the  learned  Judge  settled  as  the  issues  between 
them  as  follows : — (1)  What  is  the  nature  of  the 
invention  which  it  is  alleged  the  defendant  has  in- 
fringed— is  it  the  arrangement  for  transmitting 
motion  to  the  top  rolling  surface  through  the  case 
or  jacket  surrounding  it  ? (2)  Is  the  plaintiff  the 
first  and  true  inventor  of  that?  (3)  Was  it  new 
and  useful  ? (4)  Did  defendants  infringe  it  ? 
Connected  with  these  issues  we  take  it  that 
it  was  admitted  as  a fact  that  the  plaintiff  had 
in  July  1881  obtained  a patent  in  Ceylon  for 
“ improvement  in  machinery  or  apparatus  for 
rolling  tea  leaf,"  and  had  under  that  patent 
manufactured  and  sold  a machine  or  apparatus  called 
“Jackson’s  Excelsior";  and  it  was  also  admitted 
that  the  second  defendant  had  on  the  4th  day  of 
October  1888  (seven  years  and  more  afterwards) 
obtained  a patent  in  Ceylon  of  “ an  invention  for 
improvements  in  machinery  for  rolling  tea,”  and  that 
under  the  patent  the  first  defendant  Company  with 
the  license  and  authority  of  the  second  defendant  had 
manufactured  and  sold  a machine  or  apparatus  called 
the  “ Triple-action  roller”;  and  it  was  with  regard 
to  this  machine  that  it  was  alleged  the  infringement 
of  the  plaintiff’s  patent  had  taken  place.  The  learned 
District  Judge  has  given  judgment  for  the  defend- 
ant, his  finding  on  the  respective  issues  being,  as  to 
the  second  issue,  that  the  plaintiff  was  the  first  and 
true  inventor  of  the  machine  “Excelsior";  as  to  the 
third  issue  that  -it  was  a novel  and  useful  machine  ; 
and  as  to  that  part  of  the  first  which  referred  to 
infringement,  that  the  defendants  have  not  infringed 
plaintiff’s  particular  right  to  the  transmitting  of 
motion  to  the  upper  rolling  surface  through  the  case 
or  jacket.  Now  as  regards  the  first  issue,  it  is  to  be 
observed  that  there  is  no  definite  finding  of  the 
learned  judge  as  to  the  first  part  of  it— 
