Nov.  i,  1892.] 
THE  TROPICAL  AGRICULTURIST. 
3SS 
arrangement  for  transmitting  motion  to  the  top  rolling 
surface  through  the  case  or  jacket  surrounding  it 
whereby  such  rolling  surface  is  left  free  as  regards 
vertical  movement  from  the  mechanism  producing  it. 
Second.  The  arrangement  for  turning  over  the  jacket 
B to  give  ready  access  to  the  upper  and  under  rolling 
surfaces.  Third.  The  combination  in  machinery  or 
apparatus  for  rolling  tea  leaf  of  a crank  shaft  having 
three  crank  movements  so  arranged  or  constructed  as 
to  cause  the  rolling  surfaces  to  move  simulta- 
neously across  each  other  all  substantially  as  herein- 
before described — and  the  plaintiff  having  claimed  the 
above  three  points  of  novelty  in  his  invention  has 
disclaimed  all  else  (Harrison  vs.  the  Anderson  Foundry 
Company,  L.R.  1 App.  Ca.  574)(G221)  and  his  invention 
cannot  be  infringed  except  in  respect  to  these  three 
points  of  novelty. 
(3)  The  word  “it”  used  in  the  fourth  issue  settled 
in  the  District  Court,  refers  to  the  first  claim  of 
novelty  of  the  plaintiff’s  invention  set  forth  in  the  first 
of  the  issues  settled  in  the  District  Court,  and  not  to 
plaintiff’s  machine  as  a whole. 
III.  The  appellants  deny  that  they  contend,  or 
ever  have  contended,  (1)  that  because  the  connect- 
ing plate  or  link  “ performs  the  part  in  machines 
which  is  assigned  to  a connecting  rod,  therefore 
everything  connected  with  it  can  only  be  a con 
necting  rod”  (2)  Or  “ that  it  is  not  possible  to  speak 
of  ‘ case  or  jacket’  as  including  the  four  sided  box 
from  lid  and  bottom  and  through  which  the  upper 
rolling  surface  passes.”  (3)  Or  “ that  the  thin 
cylinder  of  metal  which  is  inserted  as  a lining  to  the 
cylinder  of  the  defendants’  machine  and  which  con- 
fines the  upper  rolling  surface  and  which  is  move- 
able  at  will  corresponds  to  the  1 case  or  jacket’  of 
the  plaintiff’s  machine,”  i.e.,  the  case  or  jacket  as 
described  by  the  plaintiff  himself  in  his  evidence 
in  the  District  Court. 
IY.  The  defendants  contend,  and  have  always 
contended,  that  the  ‘case  or  jacket’  of  the  plaintiff’s 
machine  is  the  four  sided  box  from  top  to  bottom 
through  which  the  upper  rolling  surface  passes  and 
from  which  it  receives  its  motion,  and  that  the  ‘case 
or  jacket’  which  is  made  of  wood  in  the  model  of 
the  plaintiff's  machine,  which  is  moveable  at  will, 
and  which  contains  the  leaf  being  rolled  corresponds 
to  and  is  the  exact  equivalent  of  the  thin  cylinder 
which  is  made  of  brass  in  the  model  of  the  first 
defendant’s  machine,  which  is  also  moveable  at  will, 
and  which  also  contains  the  leaf. 
Y.  The  appellants  submit  that  their  machine 
cannot  be“  the  result  of  an  adoption  of  the  mechani- 
cal principles  and  contrivances  which  found 
practical  adoption  and  arrangement  in  the 
plaintiff’s  machine  varied  no  more  than  in 
unessential  form,  but  with  certain  improvements 
made  by  the  defendants,  and  which  are  practically 
useful  only  in  connection  with  it,”  because,  if  this 
were  so,  then  it  would  be  possihle  to  take  one  of 
the  plaintiff’s  machines  and  ada.pt  to  it  the  improve- 
ments in  tea-rolling  machinery  possessed  by  the 
first  defendant’s  machine,  whereas  the  appellants 
submit  that  it  is  impossible  to  use  the  improve- 
ments in  tea  rolling  machinery  possessed  by  their 
machine  in  conjunction  with  the  means  used  by 
the  plaintiff  for  imparting  motion  to  the  top  rolling 
surface. 
YI.  The  appellants  submit  that  on  the  facts 
found  by  the  learned  Senior  Puisne  Justice,  judg- 
ment should  have  been  given  for  the  defendants  in 
this  action. 
The  learned  Senior  Puisne  Justice  finds  “ that 
the  best  evidence  in  this  case  proves  that  the 
‘ case  or  jacket  ’ is  the  sides  which  surround  the 
upper  roller  which  forms  a space  or  box  into  which 
the  tea  leaf  is  poured,  and  which  keeps  the  leaf 
together  while  it  is  being  rolled  between  the  sur- 
faces of  the  two  rollers.  The  projections  which 
connect  this  case  or  jacket  with  other  parts  of  the 
machine  have  been  called  by  some  of  the  witnesses 
a connecting  rod,  and  in  a sense  that  part  of  the 
projection  which  joins  the  case  to  the  gearing  is  a 
connecting  rod,  but  the  latter  part  of  the  evidence, 
and  I think  a reasonable  use  of  the  words,  leads  me 
t9  the  conclusion  that  a part  of  the  “ jacket  is 
the  thickened  band  which  passes  round  the  case  or 
jacket,”  and  which  at  once  serves  to  connect  it 
with  the  gearing,  and  to  give  it  strength.” 
The  appellants  beg  to  submit  that  the  definition  of  the 
“case^or  jacket”properly  laid  down  by  the  learned  Senior 
Puisne  Justice  is  in  their  opinion  absolutely  cor- 
rect ; but  they  do  not  agree  that  the  thickened 
band  which  passes  round  the  “ case  or  jacket”  can 
be  held  to  be  a part  of  the  case  or  jacket.  And 
the  appellants  submit  that  the  learned  Senior  Pusine 
J ustice  has  misunderstood  the  evidence  of  the  scien- 
tific witnesses  with  reference  to  this  part  of  the 
machine. 
The  appellants  contend,  and  they  submit  that  their 
contention  is  fully  borne  out  by  the  evidence  of  the 
scientific  witnesses  both  for  the  plaintiff  and  for 
the  defendants,  that  the  thickened  band  is  a con- 
necting rod  formed  into  the  shape  in  which  it  is 
used  to  carry  and  lend  support  to  the  case  or 
jacket.  The  learned  Senior  Pusine  Justice  appears 
to  consider  the  connecting  piece  alluded  to  as  that 
which  connects  the  box  with  the  gearing.  The 
appellants  beg  to  submit  that  that  is  not  what  the 
scientific  witnesses  stated.  The  connecting  rod  is 
that  which  connects  and  completes  the  driving  me- 
chanism. The  undoubted  mechanical  authority,  D. 
J.  M.  Rankine  thus  defines  a connecting  rod 
(Rankine’s  Applied  Mechanics  p.  458): — “ The  pieces 
which  are  connected  by  link  work  if  they  rotate 
or  oscillate  are  usually  called  crank  beams  or  levers. 
The  link  by  which  they  are  connected  is  a rigid 
bar  which  may  be  straight  or  of  any  other  figure. 
The  straight  being  the  most  favourable  to  strength 
is  used  when  there  is  no  special  reason  to  the 
contrary.  The  link  is  known  by  various  names 
uuder  various  circumstances,  such  as  coupling  rod, 
connecting  rod,  crank  rod,  eccentric  rod,  &c.  It  is 
attaohed  to  the  pieces  which  it  connects  by  two  pins 
about  which  it  is  free  to  move.” 
YII.  The  learned  Senior  Puisne  Justice  finds  that 
“ the  motion  is  not  transmitted  precisely  at  the  same 
piaoe  or  in  the  same  way  in  the  defendants’ machine  as 
in  the  ‘ plaintiffs,’  and  ho  goes  on  to  say  ‘ but  the 
exact  way  in  which  the  motion  is  transmitted  is  not 
the  question.’  ” 
The  appellants  would  beg  to  submit  that  on  the 
contrary  this  is  the  whole  question.  It  is  the  way 
or  arrangement  of  transmitting  motion  to  the  upper 
rolling  surface  which  the  plaintiff  states  has  been 
pirated  by  the  defendants,  and,  if  the  Senior  Puisne 
Justice  finds  that  the  defendants  do  not  transmit 
motion  to  the  upper  rolling  surface  in  the  same 
manner  as  the  plaiatiff  does,  then  the  defendants  have 
not  pirated  the  plaintiff’s  invention. 
Wood,  Y.  0.,  in  Curtis  vs.  Platt  (S.  T.  R.  N.  S.  246) 
has  laid  down  that  “ if  you  find  a specifio  mechanical 
improvement  claimed  then  you  most  hold  the  person 
strictly  to  that  particular  mechanical  device  which 
he  has  claimed  for  effecting  the  object  he  had 
in  view,  and  if  he  says  it  is  to  be  done  in  one 
precise  and  particular  way,  he  must  be  held  to  that  one 
precise  and  particular  way,  and  those  who  have, 
bona  Jide,  employed  a different  system  and  a 
different  way  must  not  be  held  to  have  infringed,” 
VIII.  The  appellants  submit  that  to  form  a correct 
opinion  on  the  merits  of  this  ac‘ion  it  is  necessary 
that  the  following  points  be  kept  distinctly  in  view 
(1).  That  the  plaiutiff  stands  or  falls  by  what  he 
has  specified  and  olaimed  in  his  Excelsior  patent, 
and  that  the  defendants  stands  or  fall  by  what  they 
have  manufactured,  sold,  and  used.  (2)  That  the 
Standard  roller,  a machine  which  carries  into  effect 
the  principle  of  rolling  tea  leaf  confined  in  a box 
between  two  superposed  rolling  surfaces  was  in  use 
and  publicly  known  in  Ceylon  for  some  years  previous 
to  the  date  on  which  the  plaintiff  filed  his  specification 
of  tho  Excelsior  roller:  (3)  That  the  Standard  roller 
was  never  patented  in  Ueylon.  (4)  That  the  plaintiff’s 
Excelsior  patent  is  for  an  invention  of  a new  combi- 
nation of  well-known  parts,  and  not  for  a new  invention. 
In  the  Standard,  Excels:or,  and  Triple  Action  tea 
rollers  the  idea  or  principle  is  to  confine  a certain 
quantity  of  tea  leaf  in  a box  having  neither  top  nor 
bottom,  and  to  operate  ou  the  leaf  bo  confined  by  two 
