356 
THE  TROPICAL  AGRICULTURIST. 
[Nov.  i,  1892. 
rolling  surface?,  the  one  placed  at  the  bottom  and  the 
other  at  the  top  of  the  box  ; so  that,  virtually,  these 
rolling  surfaces  form  the  top  and  bottom  of  the  box,  and 
it  will  be  seen  that,  as  the  tea  leaf  becomes  rolled  and 
compressed  together,  it  is  necessary  to  approach  the 
two  rolling  surfaces,  and,  to  permit  of  this  being  dore, 
the  upper  rolling  surfaces  in  the  Standard,  Excelsior  and 
Triple  Action  tea  rollers  has  been  made  of  less  area  than 
the  inside  area  of  the  box.  In  the  Standard  roller  the 
driving  meohantsm  is  directly  attached  to  the  upper 
rolling  surface  in  such  a manner  that  vertical  move- 
ment  of  the  upper  rolling  surface  is  impossible,  and, 
therefore,  to  approaoh  the  two  rolling  surfaces  of  the 
Standard  roller  tbe  cumbersome  method  of  raising  up 
the  heavy  lower  rolling  surface  bad  to  be  adopted. 
The  plaintiff,  in  bis  Excelsior  roller,  to  avoid  this 
cumbersome  method  of  approaching  the  two  rolling 
surfaces,  gave  up  positive  driving  of  the  upper  roll- 
ing surface,  and  attached  his  mechanism  directly  to 
the  box,  leaving  the  upper  rolling  surface  to  be  pushed 
about  by  the  sides  of  the  box,  and  perfectly  free,  as 
regards  vertical  movement,  from  the  mechanism 
operating  it,  and  this  free  vertical  movement  is  the 
very  pith  and  marrow  of  the  plaintiff’s  first  claim. 
It  is  the  result  sought  by  the  arrangement  of  trans- 
mitting motion  adopted  and  patented  by  him. 
The  appellants  beg  however  to  submit  that  though 
the  plaintiS’s  Excelsior  roller  possesses  advantages 
not  found  in  the  Standard,  still  that  both  the  Ex- 
celsior roller  and  tbe  Standard  roller  have  serious 
defects  which  cannot  be  avoided  with  the  arrange- 
ment of  transmitting  motion  to  the  upper  rolling 
surface  adopted  in  these  two  machines,  viz.,  giving 
positive  motion  to  only  one  of  the  parts,  leaving 
one  to  be  pushed  about  by  the  other.  The  upper 
rolling  surface  in  both  these  machines  has  no  rolling 
effect,  its  sole  office  being  to  keep  the  charge  of  leaf 
pressed  hard  down  on  to  the  lower  rolling  surface 
whioh  dies  all  the  work.  The  upper  rolling  surface 
in  both  these  machines  has  to  be  made  a working 
fit  to  the  box,  or  the  box  would  very  soon  be  broken 
to  pieces  by  the  impact  of  the  lid  on  it,  and  the  leaf 
is  therefore  contained  in  praotically  an  air  tight  box, 
and  it  will  be  readily  understood  that  great  heat  is 
generated  in  the  leaf  while  it  is  being  rolled,  whereas 
it  is  very  advantageous  to  keep  the  leaf  cool  while 
undergoing  this  process  of  manufacture. 
In  the  Triple  Aotion  tea  roller  sold  by  the  appel- 
lant?, positive  motion  is  imparted  to  all  three  parte, 
viz.,  the  box  and  the  two  rolling  surfaces  independently 
of  each  other,  no  one  of  these  three  parts  driving  the 
other,  and  not  only  is  the  appellants’  roller  outside 
the  spirit  of  the  plaintiff’s  claim,  but  it  is  submitted 
that  it  is  equally  clearly  outside  the  letter  of  it.  Tbe 
top  rolling  surface  is  not  driven  “through”  the  box  : 
both  are  driven  by  one  and  the  same  reciprocating 
part,  but  neither  transmits  motion  to  the  other.  It 
iB  submitted  that  it  cannot  be  said  that  these  two 
things  are  identioa).  In  the  ordinary  construction  of 
steam  engines  the  slide  valves  are  driven  from  the 
same  shaft  that  drives  the  fly-wheel,  but  it  cannot  he 
argued  that  therefore  the  slide  valves  drive  the  fly- 
wheel. 
This  arrangement  of  independently  driving  the  three 
rolling  parts,  viz : — the  box  and  the  two  rolling  surfaces, 
it  is  submitted,  has  euabled  the  first  defendant  to  avoid 
the  two  serious  defects  contained  in  both  the  Standard 
and  Excelsior  rollers  previously  alluded  to.  As  the 
upper  rolling  surface  of  the  Triple  Action  roller  is 
not  driven  by  the  sides  of  the  box  whioh  surrounded 
it,  the  first  defendant  is  enabled  to  provide  ventilation 
by  leaving  a frea  margin  of  space  between  the  upper 
rolling  surface  and  the  surrounding  case  or  jacket,  and 
again  as  the  upper  rolling  surface  of  the  Triple  Aotion 
roller  is  not  drivon  by  the  case  or  jacket  surrounding 
it,  the  first  defendant  was  able  to  give  the  upper 
rolling  surfaoe  of  the  Triple  Action  roller  an  indepen- 
dent rolling  motion  ; so  that  the  leaf  is  being  operated 
on  at  both  ends  of  the  caso  or  jacket,  whereas  in  the 
Standard  and  Exoolsior  rollers  tho  leaf  is  being  rolled 
by  the  lower  rolling  surface  alone. 
The  appellants  submit  that  the  substance  of  the 
matter  is  that  the  plaintiff  has  claimed  a definite  mode 
pf  driving  the  upper  rolling  surface,  viz,  that  it  gets 
its  motion  not  from  any  part  of  the  mechanism,  but 
from  tbe  sides  of  the  box  surrounding  it,  and  that 
is  a totally  different  thing,  it  is  submitted,  from  the 
sides  of  the  box  being  driven  by  the  same  thing  that 
drives  the  upper  rolling  surface. 
To  be  within  the  claim  of  the  plaintiff,  it  is  sub- 
mitted that  it  must  be  the  sides  of  the  box  that  do 
the  driving. 
The  appellants  deny  that  the  bearing  in  the  bow 
bracket  of  the  defendant’s  machine  can  be  regarded 
as  the  equivalent  of  “tbe  case  or  jacket”  of  tho 
plaintiff’s  machine  a3  held  by  the  learned  Chief  Justice, 
but  for  the  sake  of  argument  allow  them  to  be 
mechanically  equivalent,  and  still  the  defendant's 
machine  would  not  infiinge  the  plaintiff’s  patent, 
for  by  the  substitution  of  this  mechanical 
equivalent,  distinct  improvement  in  tea  rolling 
machinery  are  obtained  for  a distinct  purpose,  which 
cannot  be  obtained  by  the  arrangement  used  by 
the  plaintiff,  and  the  appellants  submit  that  it 
is  quite  open  to  any  person  to  substitute  a 
merchanical  equivalent  for  another  without  infringing 
that  which  it  is  substituted  for  provided  that  a distinct 
public  benefit  be  obtained  by  the  new  method  over  the 
old.  Lord  Westbury,  L.C.,  remarks  in  Ourtis  vs.  Platt, 
with  reference  to  a patent  taken  out  by  Mr.  Platt  for 
improvements  applicable  to  mules,  &c.,  might  in  this 
matter  be  prapbraeed  thus: — Mr.  Brown,  although 
he  to  a certain  extent  avails  himself  of  the  same 
elements,  yet  put  them  in  a different  continuation  he 
makes  their  effect  on  the  upper  rolling  sv.rface  different, 
he  makes  the  results  different.  It  has  been  nrged 
that  Mr.  Jackson’s  invention  is  capable  of  or 
might  be  made  to  produce  a result  co-exteneive 
and  co-equal  with  Brown’s  invention.  If  it  is  so,  all 
I can  say  is  that  Mr.  Jackson  has  not  given  to  the 
world  the  benefit  of  a description  of  the  mode  by 
which  they  may  be  effected.  I think  it  is  a very  material 
thing  * * * that  in  comparing  the  two  things 
together  the  result  on  the  work  done  by  Brown’s  patent 
are  treble,  and  if  treble,  tnblg  more  benefical  than  the 
work  done  by  Jackson's  patent. 
The  appellants  submit  that  the  above  exactly  deals 
with  the  poiDt  at  issue  in  this  action,  and  they 
further  submit  that  the  superior  usefulness  of  the 
Triple  Action  roller  cannot  be  attributed  to  the  im- 
provement added  to  the  invention  secured  by  the 
plaintiff’s  patent,  beoause  the  mechanism  used 
by  the  first  defendant  to  produce  this  desirable 
result  cannot  be  used  in  conjunction  with  the 
arrangement  patented  by  the  plaintiff  for  the  trans- 
mission of  motion  to  the  top  rolling  surface,  and  the 
appellants  again  rely  on  the  dootrine  laid  down  by  Lord 
YVestbury  in  Curtis  vs.  Platt,  with  reference  to  the 
doctrine  of  meohanical  equivalents  when  directed  to 
secure  a certain  end  that  was  previously  well-known. 
The  rolling  motion  given  to  the  rolling  parts  of  the 
Triple  Action  roller,  viz.,  the  case  or  jaoket  and  two 
superposed  rolling  surfaces,  is  obtained  by  an  arrange- 
ment of  mechanism  consisting  of  two  opposing  vertical 
crank  shafts,  each  having  two  crank  pins  connected 
by  counnectiDg  rods,  plates,  or  pieces,  and  it  is  the 
motion  produced  by  these  two  connecting  rods, 
plates,  or  pieces  to  whioh  the  rolling  parts  are  attached 
that  rolls  the  tea  leaf,  in  continuation  with  an  addi- 
tional rolling  motion  given  to  the  upper  rolling  surface 
taken  from  a continuation  of  one  of  the  opposing  crank 
shafts. 
Because  one  of  the  motions  given  to  the  top  rolling 
surface  is  isochronal  with  the  motion  given  to  the  case 
Or  jaoket,  it  does  not  follow  that,  therefore, either  drives 
the  other.  In  ail  rolling  machines  on  the  principle  of 
tbe  Standard,  Excelsior,  and  Triple  Aotion,  the  motion 
given  to  the  top  rolling  surface  must  be  more  or 
less  isochronal  with  that  of  the  oase  or  jacket,  to  pre- 
vent the  one  coming  into  collision  with  the  other  and, 
indeed,  if  this  latitude  of  interpretation  be  allowed, 
it  might  be  argued  with  equal  force  that  the  arrange- 
ment used  in  the  Standard  roller,  viz.,  that  of  driving 
the  case  or  jacket  by  the  upper  rolling  surface,  is  the 
same  as  that  used  in  the  Excelsior  roller,  viz.,  driving 
the  upper  rolling  surface  by  the  case  or  jacket,  andthp 
Plaintiff  s Patent  is  vpid, 
