498 
tHE TROPICAL AQRItSOLTURlST. [January i, 1892. 
the still BUOoeBsfully ouUivated trees were put in 7 
The report furnishes ua with no data by which 
Buoh hypotheses as these could be replied to. It 
is, however, very oertain that there yet remain to 
US fields of ooffee whioh, at the present high 
rate obtainable for the berry at home, are very 
remunerative. And yet, in the faoe of this faot, 
the directors of the Lanka Company announce 
that "each year the acreage becomes unavoid- 
ably smaller." It is a pleaeing feature of the 
report that it informs us of a sufficiently profitable 
result to the year's working to enable eubstantial 
dividends to be declared. Even with an unfavour- 
able rate of exchange during the first half of the 
year, the profits made reached £6,443 2s. 6d, From 
this the directors have decided to pay 6 per cent 
on the preference shares, and, but for precaution- 
ary reasons, they might have declared 4 per cent on 
the ordinary shares. We are not saying that these 
are high rates of dividend, but they at least show 
a very marked advance as compared with many 
past years. Reverting to the matter of produce on 
the Company's estates, it is to be observed that 
cinchona is still regarded as almost a hopeleEs 
production, and so we must consider it to be until 
"time brings about its revenges." On the other 
hand, cacao appears to have given such good results 
that the directors are anxious for more capital to 
develope its cultivation, and the Company appears 
to have been fortunate in discovering upon its 
properties sites well-suited to its eomewhat capri- 
cious taste. We note that 341 acres planted with 
cacao returned last year a profit not far short of 
£3,000. This seems good enough to tempt further 
extension, and will doubtless set Fome of our 
planters on a further look-out for such localities 
of soil &o. on their estates that might prove suitable 
for experimenting. We notice that the average 
price obtained for the Company's tea throughout 
last year was 9J per lb. net. 
CONSUMPTION OF CEYLON TEA IN BEITIAN 
AND HER C OLONIES AND IN FOREIGN 
COUNTRIES. 
By an unaccountable oversight, we yesterday, 
in dealing with the comparative consumption of 
Ceylon teas in Britain and her colonies and in 
Foreign countries, omitted to include Australia in 
the formor category while the figures against it 
went into the latter. The result was to give a far 
too favourable idea of the extent to which, with all 
our efforts, we have been able to open markets for 
our teas other than those of Britain and her colo- 
nies. The real figures are such as will still more 
enforce the necessity and the duty of relaxing 
no efforts to open foreign markets, especially those 
of the American continent by means of the 
Chicago Exhibition. Supposing Ceylon producee, 
as we estimated, 65^ millions of pounds of tea in 
1891, we may, perhaps, strike off the odd half 
million for local consumption. The disposal of 
the rest will then bo : — lb. 
Taken by Great Britain, say 60,000,000 
„ British Colonies, ;, 4,500,000 
,, Foreign couDtricB (ow??/) 1,500,000 
Bo that, allowing for portions of the exports to 
India and China (Hongkong) going ultimately to 
foreign countries, the proportion of our crop of 05^ 
millions (with the prosppot of considerable increase 
for half a dozfn years to come) taken by 
foreign countries is considerably less Ihnn 
two millions of pounds 1 Wo confess to being 
personally taken by surprise by such a result 
as this. Our planters and their agents have 
made no impre&eion worth mention on Russia 
and_ as yet there is nothing very hope- 
ful in regard to the other great tea-consuming 
country, the United States. This is not a time for 
holding back on any pretext, but for a long pull and 
a strong pull and a pull altogether in favour of the 
introduction of our teas into foreign countries, especi- 
ally the United States, Russia, Germany and France, 
. ^ 
THE TEA ROLLER PATENT CASE. 
The esse for iufringement of patent at the 
instance of Mr. Wm. Jackfon agaiust Mr. A. Brown 
and the Oorameroial Company came before Mr. Morgan 
in the District Court of Colombo yesterday afternnon. 
V<-. Withers for the plaintiff wished to know 
wiiether any -al obi rations e going to be 
pressed; and ocitig tciu by Mi ^.uwne that there 
were he said thev sboald be stated so that he might 
b able to meet them. 
Mr. Beowne for the defendants said it would be a „.jod 
thing if they could gettheieeuea in law and fact luid down 
in the first place. He saggested that members of the 
bftr might make it a point of practice amotigft them- 
Belves that plaintiff's counsel should draft tb- isaues 
and submit them to difenrlant's conuEel say a week 
before the trial came on. If they were accepted well 
and gociii, but if the parties disagreed then the Court 
would have to settle them on the day of the .rial. 
Tho Judge said it would be a very convenient way 
of doing business. 
Mr. WiTHEES wifrhed to know the legal issues. 
Tl.e only one, aa he understood, was that remedy by 
this action was barred, because the plaintiff had not 
taken a statutable remedy. 
The Judge aaid there appeared to be two matters 
of law. It _ was stateil that the plaintiff had not 
stated the inventi"n in respect of which exclusive 
privilege waa granted to him. and secondly it wsa 
stated that the plaiotiff should liave recourse to certain 
procedure. 
Mr. VViTHEBs remarked that the defendants in their 
answer did not say that the machine referred to was 
the one of which tl e phiintiff complained. 
The Judge thought that was the inference from 
the whole of the answer. 
Mr. Bhowne said the argument on that part had 
better be postponed till it was shown, so far as the 
plaiutifif'a case had gone, that it was the triple action 
tea roller which was the machine that he complained 
the defendants bad imported and sold in Csylon. 
If he said that it was, which the pleadings did not 
aa yet disclose, it might be time for them to say 
" Oh ! we have taken a patent for that." It waa 
a matter that would arise out of the state of facts 
that might be pioved. 
Mr. WiTHEES thought that had better be assumed 
for the sake of argument. 
The Judge was understood to say that he thought 
there could be no doubt thai it was the triple action 
machine that was referred to. 
Mr. Browne said the plaintiff in the fourth paragraph 
of his libel did not say that the machine whioh the de- 
fendants had imported was the triple action roller. He 
only eaid they had infringed the plaintiffs patent 
right by importing into and Relling in Oeylon machi- 
nery and apparatus for rolling tea possessing the 
arrangement described in the specification of the 
plaintiff's patent. The second objection waa a special 
defence in law whioh might arise hereafter according 
to the facts, bat he intended to press the objection 
that the plaintiff had not di^c osed any cau<<e of action 
against them. The plaintiff had not alleged what 
was the invention in respect of which exclusive 
privilege was grunted to hira. The whole machine 
was described in the fpecificalion. Hnd the defen" 
(lants infringed the whole of it ? Three things were 
singled out allerwards, but the plaintiff did not 
particularise what was the invention infringed. He 
did not say that it waa the orrangemeut lor trans- 
mittiiigmotiou to the lop rollingfurface throughthe case 
or jacket surrounding it. Mr. BroAvno then proceeded 
