March t, 1892.] THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 
663 
the Court and extracting information in that respect 
from the different witnesses. One got very rusty 
over mechanics — ahnost as rusty as mechanism 
itself got in this tropical climate. He had had one 
mechanical case in 1885 in that the Court and another 
— he thought it was a year or two ago— in the District 
Court of Kandy, and beyond that he did not know what 
questions of mechanism had arisen in either Court 
during the last 20 years. They were at _ a greater 
disadvantage here than specialist counsel in London 
were to whom snch cases were a matter of every, 
day occurrence. However, they had to do their besi; ; 
and for his own part, in his branch of the case he 
had to acknowledge his very great indebtedness to 
Ids client who sat on his right (young Mr. Brown) 
whom he might call his mechanical junior for all his 
assistance in the case. He could not have played 
any part at all if it had not been for his 
help. In this matter it was hard to know 
where to begin. His Honour had been at the 
trouble for the last four or five days of taking down 
a mass of evidence that he thought had run to 
over 100 pages of writing, and now it was his 
duty to explain to His Honour what the defen- 
dant's theories were — they were very simple — in 
regard to the whole of this case, and to apply the 
evidence to the whole case and to apply the 
evidence to them. First let them get as true an 
idea as possible of each inventor's work, and he 
thought the result of such an enquiry would be 
to establish that the two machines were as 
diametrically opposed to each other in every 
principle and action as they possibly could be 
— so opposed that it was almost impossible to 
think that there could be any similarity, and 
certainly such a similarity as to amount to an 
infringement. Mr. Jackson had given a history of 
how he arrived at what he called the invention 
of the Excelsior. He had told them that after a 
training as a mechanical engineer — he (Mr. Browne) 
took that to be that he was more of a practical than 
a scientific engineer — he proceeded to Assam. Like 
Mr. Lamont he seemed to have studied his art in 
manufactories at home, which, though they had a 
great deal to do as marine engineers with the roll- 
ing sea, had nothing to do with rolling tea. After 
that experience he came out to India and began life 
there apparently as a tea planter. Then he directed 
his attention to tea machinery. He told them that 
there were already rollers in existence, and as far as 
he (Mr. Browne) could see by what Mr. Jackson had 
told them and by passages in the report of one case 
to which he, as Mr. Jackson mentioned, was an 
unwilling party, most of the principles of the Standard 
machine were in existence before he took out his 
license. The patent for the Standard was taken out 
in India, and Mr. Jackson came here as an expert, 
and in direct examination told Mr. Withers "I in- 
vented the Standard, I took the patent in India for 
it." He posed before the Court in all the glory of 
an original inventor, and if his evidence stood un- 
contradicted without cross-examination the Court 
would look up to him indubitably as an authority of 
weight in the matter. The production of the Calcutta 
Jjaw Reports and his own admissions'there were, how- 
ever, quite sufficient to overthrow that status to which 
he had raised himself in his direct examination. 
The one word "Kinmond" on the defendant's model 
showed him perfectly well that they knew the fallacy 
of wliat he (Mr. Browne) might call presumptive 
assertion that he made in his direct examination. 
Mr. Jackson admitted that that very machine was 
involved in the patent case in Calcutta; he admitted 
that the jH-inciple of that machine was one not of 
187.') or of 1871 but was one of the year 1865 when 
Kinmond first brought out liis idea, although his upper 
rolling surface was smaller than this one. Mr. 
.lohn 15ro\yn would tell the Court that ho saw 
that machine of Kinmond's or some machine on 
that idea wliich he surmised to be the same 
as the patent in 1865 or 1868; so that to 
him it was very clear that there was no warranty 
for Jackson posing as the inventor of the Standard. 
Counsel then proceeded to quote the remarks of the 
judges iu the case of Kinmond v. Jackson (Calcutta 
Law Reports page 73) with regard to Kinmond's 
second specification, to the effect that the two im- 
portant alterations in his original machine which were 
described in the second specification were the central 
cavities or recesses and the motion given to the 
under table as well as the upper, and, that to give 
motion to the under as well as the upper plate was 
no doubt an improvement, and had the specification 
been limited to that it might have been good, but 
the specification being for the whole combination 
and not for the movement only it comes under ex- 
clusive privileges. This Mr. Browne looked upon as 
indicating that even in 1877, in the age of the 
Standard and when the Excelsior was still a thing 
of the future, both under and upper tables in tea, 
rollers had been given independent motion of each 
other. Next he referred to Jackson's improvements 
on Kinmond's machine, and said they consisted of 
three things. The machine was fed differently, the 
leaf was discharged differently, and there were springs 
underneath to minimize the vibration, Mr. Browne 
supposed, or to make the pressure more automatical. 
That was the invention ; it was nothing more at 
the best than an improvement in three details, and 
Mr. Jackson, whatever credit he was entitled to as an 
improver, could not take up the high stand of 
genius of the absolute original inventor. With so 
mu.ch credit attaching to him and no more — he was 
discounting of course Mr. Jackson's value as an 
expert witness and he was afraid— afraid for his sake 
— it would be found that by his evidence Mr. Jackson 
had discounted himself a great deal more in this case— 
the first, Loolecondera Standard, came out to Ceylon 
and was not patented. Henceforth in Ceylon every in- 
ventor or improver was perfectly at liberty to use 
any part, or any principle he might say, of the 
Standard machine in his invention. The Standard 
was never patented in Ceylon. 
Mr. Withers. — We admit it was public property ; 
common property. 
Mr. Bbowne continuing said that was very im- 
portant as regarded one thing. In the Loolecondera 
the upper rolling plate was driven direct from the 
driving mechanism ; and what did Jackson do ? 
Jackson said this was a cumbrous machine, he could 
not get at it to feed it properly, and therefore he 
said he must devise something else, and went to 
work to produce a different machine. That was one 
of the reasons that influenced him. Another was 
the heavy weight of the loose jacket on the under 
table when it was moving backwards and forwards 
tearing it all to pieces. He wanted to design some- 
thing ; lighter, simpler, and cheaper, and accordingly 
he went to design the Excelsior roller. He was 
afraid that the very designing of the Excelsior roller 
discounted Mr. Jackson's genius a little more. It 
was, he ventured to say, a very cumbrous way of 
arriving at a result. As they knew from Goodeve's 
Manual of Machines, circular motion was of a com- 
pound character and capable of resolution into its 
elements. Circular motion was produced by two forces 
which acted as he illustrated by the movement of 
his hands, transversely. Mr. Jackson got the two 
forces acting as Counsel had illustrated— a rectilinear 
force at right angles— and thus, in a quotient to the tea 
roll, got circular motion. His machine was of recti- 
linear action throughout. By putting a pencil on it at 
any part, and using a sheet of paper to record the mo- 
tion of the pencil, it would be found that the pencil made 
only straight line. It was a very ingenious idea of his 
learned friend to suggest to Mr. Jackson that if he 
attached a piece of paper to the lower rolling surface 
and put a pencil down a circle would be mai-ked when 
the two surfaces moved together, and tlie same thing 
being done on the other machine it did the same, ergo 
the two were the same. 
Mr. WiTHBHs was understood to disclaim the credit 
of that and to say that it was his client who told him. 
Mr. BitowNE continuing said it was a very clever 
suggestion for Mr. Jackson to make to his counsel to put 
to him, but it was not presenting the case to the Court 
in a proper way. It was leading the Court aside from 
the true construction of the two macliines. Wliat Blr. 
Jackson admitted to liini in cross-examination was 
that if each of the two parts recorded its motiou 
