662 
THE YROPSCAL AGRiCULTURIST. [March i, 1892. 
won't work any more than that will. The 
plaintiff's model is a good and true one. It is 
possible from one crank to drive the other by means 
of a connecting piece or rod, only that the one crank 
requires to be balanced a little bit to carry it over 
the dead set. That is a common motion in threshing 
machines at home. In the defendants' machine it 
is carried over the dead set by the upper crank being 
set at right angles to it and by the two opposing 
crank pins being connected. The jacket has the 
motion of the connecting piece or rod. The lower 
surface has the motion of the connecting piece or rod 
between the lower cranks. 
Mr. A. B. Brown, examined by Mr. Wendt, who 
is associated with Mr. Withers in. conducting the 
plaintiff's case, said : — I am Locomotive Engineer of 
the Ceylon Railway. I have had a general training as 
an engineer and am an associate member of the 
Institute of Civil Engineers. I received my training 
in the employ of Messrs. White & Sons, Isle of 
Wight, and Messrs. Stevenson & Co., Newcastle-on- 
Tyne. I have been 24 years in the practice of my 
profession and have been in Ceylon since 1874. I 
do not know anything special about tea machinery. 
I have seen the specification of the plaintiff's 
machine. I consider the model in Court to be a 
model of the Excelsior. The case or jacket is the 
brass frame, the wooden lining and the bracket. 
In the defendants' machine I find a piece of mecha- 
nism corresponding identically with the plaintiff's 
machine, with the exception that the one is 
cylindrical and the other is rectangular. The jacket 
in the Excelsior gives the upper rolling surface 
motion. It imparts a reciprocating motion. The 
upper rolling surface is left free to iiiove vertically 
only. The principle of free vertical motion is em- 
bodied in the defendant's machine. The fastening 
of the bow or bracket is merely a detail of construc- 
tion, and I do not consider that it in any way alters 
the principle of the arrangemevit. It is a small de- 
tail of alteration that might have been made to give 
the bow more rigidity or firmness. 
Cross-examined. — The claim I understand is the 
movement of the upper rolling surface through the 
jacket. There are certain tilings that are entailed 
by the movement of that jacket. By carrying the 
upper rolling surface in the jacket it is kept free 
from friction with the lower table. I glanced at 
the specification in Court this afternoon. The 
only one of the defendants' machines that I have 
seen at work was the one in the Racket Court. I 
have not read the specification of the defendant's 
machine. Mr. Jackson in his specification calls the 
jacket the wooden lining and metal surrounding. 
Speaking from memory in his specification the 
plaintiff refers in his specification to the lettering 
in his drawing. I do not think there is any letter- 
ing in the drawing on the brass part, but I do not 
consider that of any importance. I think the brass 
work would not be described by lettering in the 
drawing inasmuch as the lettering is equidistant 
from the perpendicular centre line of the drawing.- 
The lettering "B" in plaintiff's drawing, figures 1 
and 2, is placed upon the drawing of the woodwork. 
J see no reason for putting the letter "B" on the 
■ netalpart, There is no reason for not doing so. That is 
' -after for the draughtsman. Draughtsmen would 
j.j>peat tlie lettering, i should imagine that for 
the purrose of transmitting motion from the driving 
crank-shaft to the guiding 
and the lower wu'iace 
must be worki.ig to get the proper motion on 
either. It is ncces.^wy that the driving motion of 
the lixcelBior may be effectual that both the jacket 
and the lower roUiDg sartaco Hhould be at work at the 
Harne time. The lower slirface (after e.xanuniiig the 
mode)) will not move without the upper surface I ,s 
also necessary that the jacket siiould be attaciied to tlie 
Hliding l-ars at the opposite side to the crank-sliait 
in order to make the upper siu-laco work. It is also 
neceBsary that tlie jacket should bo s^upported by the 
sliding bar which acts as a guide lor tlie bearings on 
tlic jacket to work on. The jacket is acting as a 
connection between the bearings on tlic rod and 
thu ci-u-nk.»hatt. If you take away the jacket the 
a lu 
not 
crank-shaft the jacket 
acted as guiding rods. Both 
machine is incomplete and therefore will not work. 
The function of the jacket is to give motion to the 
upper rolling surface, and to the best- of my 
knowledge that is its only function. It also carries 
motion through and assists in the working of the 
lower table. I should think that it was placed there 
for the purpose of holding the leaf. It carries the 
leaf to and fro across the lower rolling sm-face. 
^To a degree the hornplates in the defendants' 
machine do the same work as the bear- 
ings in the other. In defendants' machine the 
hornplates guide the jacket laterally and in plaintiff's 
laterally and vertically. 
Mr. Jackson was again examined by Mr. Withers for 
the purpose of having recorded that what he said had 
been quite understood in the case. He deposed :— In 
strict accordance with my patent specification and 
drawing I have constructed three sizes of machines : 
the Excelsior, the Universal, and the Ceylon. It is 
these three classes of machine that I complain has 
been infringed by the defendant's machine. 
Mr. Browne. — The defendant's machine is nearest 
the size of our Universal; it is between the size of the 
Universal and the Excelsior. The area of the Excelsior 
box^ is 900 square inches. I have not worked out the 
cubic contents; it all depends upon how high you 
make the jacket. 
It was then understood that the plaintiff had closed 
his case, with the exception of some documents which 
would be put in and perhaps one or two questions. 
Mr. Withers put in his documentary evidence- 
letters patent, specification and drawings all of 
which are filed with the plaint. 11 e also read in 
evidence the specification filed with the defen- 
dant's answer. 
Blr. Browne objected to this latter point on the 
ground that it could not be read in evidence against 
them as to whether the defendants had infringed 
or not. He pressed this specially as regards the 
case of the second defendant company, that paper not 
being signed by them and did not bind them — any more 
than the report of any of the gentlemen of the press. 
The defendants would be judged by what they had 
done and not by what anybody else had said they 
had done. In other words the issue was not what 
defendant had patented or plaintiff had manufac- 
tured, but had defendants' machine infringed that 
for which the plaintiff' got a patent. 
Mr. Withers said there might be something in that 
objection if the defendants had made separate answers. 
They had put in a common answer and any admission 
that one of the defendants made was sm'ely evidence 
against all of them. The plaintiff also produced the 
models as part of this evidence. 
Mr. Browne said the defendants objected to the 
plaintiff's model of the Excelsior on the ground as 
was admitted by plaintiff, the bow or bracket was in 
the model attached to the metal frame whereas 
in the specification of patent it was attached to 
what was woodwork in the model. 
The Judge also recorded the admission by the 
defendants that the defendant company had imder 
the license of the first defendant sold the tea leaf 
rolling machines alleged by the plaintiff to in- 
fringe his invention and that these rollers were 
represented by the models. With this the plaintiff 
closedh is case. 
Mr. Browne then began his address in opening 
the defendant's case. He said he should have desired, 
if it had been possible as regarded the convenience of the 
Court, that a longer time could have been available to 
him to digest the mass of evidence that had been led 
ere he ventured to address the Coiut, but they were 
hurried here from one case to another, from de- 
famation to infringement, and he could only hope 
that the remarks he made that day whereinever they 
might be imperfect or even incorrect, would be 
supplemented and corrected by the evidence of the 
skilled expert witnesses to be placed before the Court. 
At the commencement of the case for the defence it was 
agreed between him and Mr. Dornhorst who with Mr. 
Loos appeared with him, that he should undertake 
the respoiirtibility of learning as far as he could the 
views of his cUeiits as regarded the mechanism of 
tho cliff'ci'eut mauhincfi and of expreasiug thew tg 
