March i, 1892.] THE tROPIGAL AQRIOULTURlSf. 
659 
require two coolies to feed the Standard machine for 
one cooly to feed the Excelsior. The preaeure of the leaf 
is more easily controlled in the Excelsior than in the 
Standard. You cannot see the leaf being worked in 
the Standard roller, but you can in the Excelsior. TImt 
in ouy opinion is a distinct advantage in the Excelsior. 
There is uo ventilation or very little in the Standard 
and in the Excelsior there is ventilation between 
the hopper and the cap— through the feeding mouth. 
It is much better ve.ntilateil. Before the Excel- 
sior no machine iu Oeylon had the diatinct 
advantages I have enumerated. He then proceeded 
to refer to the parts of the defendant's machine 
which in hia opinion corresponded to the parts in 
the Excelsior. The cap or upper rqlling surface 
in defendant's machine corresponds with the cap of 
the Excelsior. It has free vertical motion in the 
same way. The jackut in defendant's machine cor- 
responds with the jacket in the Excelsior machine. 
The jacket in the Excelsior is the whole jacket — 
the wooden lining with the metal frame. I point out 
tbe bow of the jacket. The bow is part of the jacket. 
The jacket is the wooden lining, metal frame and 
the bow. When I speak of the jacket of the 
defendant's machine I mean the frame, lining, and 
bow which I point out. The hornplates are part 
of it — cast with it. All these parts constitute the 
jacket. In the defendant's machine the jacket is 
driven through the crank pin to which it is 
attached. In the defendants' machine the jacket 
carries the top rolling surface ; the bow of the jacket 
carries the upper rolling surface. If the crank pin in 
the jacket of defendants' machine were taken away 
the upper rolling surface would not roll over tbe 
lower surface. The common advantage in both 
machines arising from that arrangement is the 
vertical movement of tbe upper rolling surface free 
from the mechanism driving the machine. As an 
expert do you consider that the arrangemont of 
transmitting motion to the top-rolling surface through 
the can or jacket surrounding it which is the invention 
the plaintitf claims, is adopted by the defendant in 
his machine ? Yes I consider they are both identical. 
— Yes, our firm have sold several machines of the 
Excelsior type to the Commercial Oompany. 
Cross-examined : — Our firm are Jackson's agents, 
working torpro&t. Onr firm is now converted into a 
iimitod Company of which I am a shareholder. Our 
firm sell the Excelsior, Economic, and the Rapid tea 
rollers as well aa others. I am not the patentee of 
any of these but I took out a patent for a roller 
after the style of the Economic which is also 
sold by my firm. I took out a patent for a roller 
without considering Mr. Jackson's snecificatiou very 
much and afterwards I found out that this patent in- 
fringed Mr. Jackson's Excelsior in some particulars. We 
manufacture it under a hcense from Mr. Jackson . Then as 
a shareholder and patentee you have a personal mone- 
tary interest in this case ? There is no harm in 
stating that 'i* Oh I I don't know. If Mr. Jackson 
loses his case we (my firm) will not have to pay any 
more royalty for the Economic. As a mechanical 
engineer I say that what 1 call the jacket in the Ex- 
oolsior is part of the driven machanism of the machine. 
It cannot be part of the driving mechanism. What is 
driven may drive. It carries the cap round with it ; 
it drives the cap. As regards the cap it is not part 
of the driving mechanism of the machine. It does 
not drive itself. You cannot work the lower table uu- 
lesa what 1 call the jacket is connected with the 
crank piu at the top. The jacket does not help to 
drive the lower aurfaoo. When the jacket is con- 
uooted with the upper crank piu it does not help 
to drive tho lower surface. Unless the jacket is 
oonnooted with the upper crank pin the machine aa 
a whole cannot roll tea. If the jacket were taken 
off the maobino we would have to put another 
bearing on tlio upper crank pin, in order to make 
the lower tabh^ work as it is now working. That 
bearing would bo attached to the bar. What kind 
of motion ia transmitted to " A "? A reoiprooatiug 
motion. Tho motion comes from tho crank On 
jour o(*th iloes uot "A" rooeivo its motion di- 
rectly from the inaide of the jacket " B '"? What 
directly toucbea "A" to move it in its recipro- 
cating motion ? It touches the side of the box 
and the spindle. Assuming that Mr. Jackson dis- 
claims that the spindle gives " A " any part of 
its reciprocating motion then it ia the side of the 
box or lining that moves it ? Assuming that, yes. In 
making the macliiDes there is a apace of about one 
eighth of an inch between "A" and tne lining — just 
enough to let it move up and down easily. I have 
seen BIr. Jaokeon's machine working many times. 
As the machine moves the side of " A" touches 
tbe wooden lining furthest from the direction to 
which it is moving. In manufacturing maoliines 
under Jackson's Excelsior patent we do not make the 
apindle strong enough to impart horizontal motion to 
" A" I have seen only one of defendant's machines 
at work and that was on some estate in Dikoya. In 
the working of the plaintiffs' model of defeutant's ma- 
chine the cap does not touch the lining surrounding 
it. I cannot say whether it did so in the machine 
I saw at work; It is about a year ago since I saw 
that machine in Dikoya. A year ago we knew it 
was probable that the plaintiff would come to Oeylon 
to institute this action, but I did not then examine 
defendant's machine to see whether it touched aa 
described. I am the managing engineer of the firm. 
As an engineer I say that the horn-plates in 
defendant's machine are equivalent to the bearings "F' 
iu the Excelsior on which the bar " E" rests and elides. 
The hornplates of defendant's machine simply rest and 
slide on the slide plate. They are tied down by the 
crank-pin. In the Excelsior the bar E is held in 
the bearing "F" so that it cannot jump out. It I 
were to aubgtitute for P in the Excelsior straight 
bearings like those on tbe defendant's machine, the 
machine could not be worked because the crank- 
pin would pull the jacket about in differen*^ direc- 
tions for want of the guide. Ia there a difference 
between the hornplites in defendant's machine and 
the bearings F in the Excelsior ? There is a dis- 
tinction. The beating F in the Excelsior machine 
carries up the jacket and guides it preventing the 
lining of the jacket from touching the lower sur- 
face of the table. The hornplates in the defendant's 
machine does tho same thing — it prevents the lining 
from touching the lower rolling surface. They rub 
differently. The plaintiff's bearings guide the motion 
reotillinearly and the defendants' horizontally so that 
the upper part of the machines shall uot oscillate. 
The functions of the bearings and the hornplantes in the 
two machines are not therefore the same. You could 
not substitute each for the other in the respective 
machines and make the machines work. Tbe motion 
of each part of the Excelsior is rectillinear and of 
the defendant's machine, eccentric. 
He-examined. — I said in answer to Mr. Browne 
that tbe jacket when connected with the upper 
crank pin does not help to drive the lower sur- 
face. Asked what does it do ? He replied, — It 
takes the power from the crank shaft and drives 
the upper surface. That which gives the motion to 
the jacket gives the motion also to that which 
ia inside the jacket. Motion is given directly 
by the crank to "A" through the jacket. If I removed 
the horn plates from the defendants' machine the 
machine would very aoon go to piecea. 
Mr. Fredekick Maguire deposed : — I am a 
mechanical engineer and have bad considerable 
experience of tea machinery in India, Ceylon and 
Java as well as in tho north of Ireland. I was an 
engineer on tea estates in India. I have been in 
charge of Mr. Jackson's Standard, Excelsior, and 
llapid Rollers in India. I have put these machines 
up and taken them to pieces. The model of the 
Standard in Court is, so far as I see, exactly tho 
same as tho ones I have experience of in India 
except in some little details. I have seen the triple- 
action roller in operation often in Ceylon and the 
model in Court seems to be accurate. In most of 
tho cases I have seen, it was worked without the 
belt connecting the cap and tho crank spindle. I 
htiivc rcittl tho spociijcivtiQU of tho liscclsiwr ami 
