66o 
THE TROPmkL A'€ff«t3Sm.TOm8T- 
[March 1, 1892. 
studied the drawings, and the model in Court illus- 
trates that machine in every essential particular. 
I consider that the Excelsior has the invention 
specified, the arrangement of transmitting motion to 
the top rolling surface through the case or jacket 
surrounding it. In no other class of tea machine have I 
seen that invention except in the defendant's 
machine and Law & Davidson's. I do not know 
when the latter was made but I have seen it in 
Ceylon. No workman with the Standard before him 
could have constructed either the Excelsior or triple- 
action rollers, if he had not a knowledge of machine 
designing. He then described the differences between 
the Standard and the Excelsior in view of the inven- 
tion claimed, and said : — The first and principal 
advantage in the Excelsior over the Standard is the 
method for transmitting motion through the jacket 
to the upper rolling surface, because, in the first place, 
it enables the upper rolling surface to be lifted, and 
also it enables the machine to be filled by the at- 
tendant standing in front of the machine instead of, 
in the older machine, having to moimt to the top of 
the roller. Another advantage due to this method of 
transmitting motion to the top rolling surface is that 
the machine can be cleaned easier. Then again it 
dispenses with oiling above the upper rolling surface. 
I consider that another advantage in the Excelsior 
over the Standard is that it is ' a much simpler 
machine to make ; it costs less and does more work. 
The invention or improved arrangement claimed is, as 
regards the Standard, a novel one and is the reverse of 
what obtains in the Standard. In the Standard the up- 
per-rolling surface is connected directly to the driving 
gear of the machine. In the Excelsior the jacket 
is connected directly to the driving gear, carrying 
the upper-rolling surface with it. Having regard 
to the specification and drawings and the model of 
the Excelsior before the Court, I consider that the 
case or jacket as specified in the specification 
and drawings is as follows : — First, the outer 
rim, secondly the lining of the jacket, and 
thirdly, the bow or bracket. All those constitute 
the jacket together with the bolts and screws that 
hold these together. The arrangement of transmit- 
ing motion claimed by the plaintiff exists in the 
defendant's machine. The jacket in defendant's 
machine consists in the same way as in the plain- 
tiff's machine of the same three parts, the casing 
(the iron framework), the lining of the jacket, and 
the bow or bracket, the whole jacket being con- 
nected directly with the main driving gear — the 
crank — the same as in the plaintiff's machine. The 
horn-plates in my opinion are parts of the jacket 
in the defendant's machine, serving the purpose of 
carrying the weight off the jacket and thereby 
preventing friction by scraping or rubbing on the 
lower rolling surface. The horn-plates in defen- 
dant's machine are mechanical equivalents to 
the sliding rod in the bearings of the Excelsior. 
More correctly speaking the horn-plates correspond 
with the rod in the other machine, and the bearings 
in the plaintiff's machine correspond with the 
ijearings in the defendant's machine. In the 
Excelsior with a full charge of leaf and the top 
rolling surface run up as far as it can go and full 
preasure on, it is the jacket which carries the top 
rolling surface. According to the specification ; in 
my opinion Mr. Jackson is certainly not tied down 
to making the central spindle of any diameter or 
strength ; nor is he tied down to making a light or 
strong bearing in the bow or bracket in which it works. 
Nor is he tied down by the specification to making 
the upper rolling surfnce a working fit to the lining of the 
jacket. In the Excelsior and triple action rollers the 
jackets are driven but they drive what is in them. They 
might be considered drivers as well of the caps within 
thoiii. The only thing that is really now in the 
defendant's machine is that the upper rolling surface 
revolves, which it does not in the plaintiff's; that 
is to way that it revolves on it own axis. 
CroHB-exa)nined by Mr. J5itowNK.— I worked on no 
tea estate in tlic north of Ireland. (Smiles.) I sup- 
nose that like myself when you were in Ireland you 
licard a great deal more of Jackson's (Tc /fi ani, than 
Juckiion'H tiiUi roU'Ji.' '■ i ntivcr bourd vl out; or tho other. 
I began my tea roller experience in the colonies. I 
served an apprenticeship as a mechnical engineer, 
was for six years with Messrs. Wm. Ewart <fe Sons, 
Belfast, and then went to Davidson & Co., Belfast, 
my present employers. I went to Davidson about 
1888 and I was about four months in their works. 
I came to the colonies in the beginning of 1889— 
first to Ceylon, then to India (where I was six or 
eight months), back to Ceylon, then to Java (where 
I was about six weeks) and then back to Ceylon, 
where I am now. Nearly all the time I have 
been working for Messrs. Davidson. "When 
not working for them I have been working 
for others, putting up and looking after machin- 
ery. Messrs. Davidson are Sirocco manufacturers. 
I do not consider the Commercial Company as rivals 
of my employers as regards Siroccos. At the re- 
cent Exhibition the Commercial Company exhibited 
a machine which they called a dessicator. I do 
not think that Company import desiccators. I think 
they are manufactured locally. As far as I know 
they sell them. They are in the same line of busi- 
ness as my employers. I have studied mechanics as 
a science in schools in Belfast for three or four, 
years, and I am still studying. I have seen defen- 
dants' roller on Mr. Dobree's Dikoya estate. I 
have also seen it working without a belt on Ardlaw 
tea estate. I have also seen it on Waltrim and 
Mayflower estates. I cannot remember any more. 
I do not know anything about Law & Davidson's 
machine. Mr. Jackson does not claim any special 
means for the object he had in view. The 
transmitting of motion through the case or jacket 
may be obtained in different ways. Mr. Jackson's object 
as far as I understand is to give the upper rolling sur- 
face the same motion as is received by the case or 
jacket surrounding it, at the same time allowing the 
upper rolling free vertical movement. In theStandard 
the jacket of the upper roUing surface moved in the 
sarne direction with great disadvantages. One of the 
differences bet ween the Standard and the Excelsior is that 
in the latter the upper rolling surface has free veriical 
motion which it had not in the Standard. The other dif- 
ferences are those I have already particularised. The 
sole or only object of Mr. Jackson was not to obtain 
free vertical motion in the upper rolling surface. 
That is not in the fore-front of his claim, but follows 
the transmission of motion &c., I cannot say 
what his principal object was. His claim I 
suppose is a particular means and a particular 
object. The means is the method of transmitting 
the motion and one of the objects obtained 
is the release of the upper-rolling table. Jackson 
in my opinion does not claim to patent free vertical 
movement to the upper rolling surface, but it is a 
natiu:al consequence of the first part of his claim. 
(Mr. Withers interposed an objection to the effect 
that this was trenching on a matter of law. It was 
for the judge to decide what the invention was). I 
suppose that the clause " whereby, &c." was added to 
make the claim more distinct and simpler. The relation 
between the two machines as regards looseness (in 
the jacket and upper-rolling surface) is different. 
In the Standard the case or jacket is driven by the 
four sides of the upper rolling surface when the 
machine is working. In the Excelsior the upper 
rolling surface is driven by the jacket and is in- 
directly connected to it. Is the jacket of the Standard 
driven by all four sides of the upper rolling surface 
at one and the sametime ? It would be hard to 
say how it is driven during any one second or 
instant when it is working. When pressure is on 
the leaf may roll it on all four sides. In practice 
with leaf I could not tell you which side touched it 
instantaneously ; the bottom table might push the 
jacket to any side. I cannot remember the space 
between the jacket and upper rolling surface in 
the Standard. In Jackson's the space is about the 
sixteenth of an inch to allow the upper rolling sur- 
face to work up and down — what you may call a 
working fit. In the Standard the jacket was always 
loose. In the Excelsior the upper rolling surface is 
loose to a certain extent but not in the 
same way aa in tlio other. In the Excelsior the 
upper roUinsi eiufage though loose in the jacket is 
