March i, 1892.] 
THE TROPSCAi. At3HmiOtM.TOR1ST. 
665 
light for the planter's puxse as well. On 
a comparison of the weight of the Standard 
and Excelsior it would be found that there 
was practically no difference, and what he 
said was that Jackson got his lightness of weight 
in the woodwork, only he made his connecting rod 
of such strength — he supposed Mr. Jackson thought 
it was necessary — that the whole aggregated up to 
the weight of the Standard. The great difference 
Ijetween the Standard and the Excelsior was that 
Jackson took the driving crank off the upper rolling 
surface which he left free to vertical motion by its 
own gravity, and getting rid of the top part that 
was controlling it put it on to the jacket. Instead 
of moving the jacket about by the upper rolling 
surface as in the Standard he did the contrary, 
the advantage that he thereby gained being that 
he got motion applied directly in the plane where- 
ever it might be at the time whether high up 
or low down. What the defendants said was 
Jackson's object in this patent was to release 
the upper rolling surface and leave it to 
descend automatically within the case or jacket sur- 
rounding at so that 'he might apply weight to it and 
use it with mucli more convenience. The other 
results following upon that were as Mr. Jackson had 
stated. Mr. Jackson denied that that was the pith 
and marrow of his invention, but the proof that it 
was his object was in his own claim of novelty. 
" I claim for my novelty the transmission of motion 
to the upper rolling surface through the case or 
jacket surrounding it, whereby the upper rolling 
surface is left free as regards vertical movement 
from the mechanism operating it." If it was for 
ventilation, for inspection of the leaf, or for any 
other of these five or six general purposes that this 
invention was designed, thought out, matured and 
put into, practice, why were not all those s^urposes 
specified in the claim of novelty instead of only the 
one which was put in the fore-front of his claim, 
and the one with which they had mainly to deal, 
namely " whereby &c." ? Jackson foresaw that there 
was all this diiiiculty before him, and in his plaint 
he had left out the words "whereby" &c. He read 
Jackson's claim, and he asked the Court to read it 
as a claim for the release of the top rolling 
surfacH into automatic action and the transmitting of 
motion to it when in that state ; but he had left out 
the words "whereby" &c. in his plaint because he saw 
that not for a single moment was the defendant's 
machine automatic, being controlled^ in every part. 
The defendant's never contemplated free action ; they 
never got rid of the top gear as Jackon did; nay 
more they retained the driving of their top rolling 
surface from the driving mechanism of their machine, 
— and they were free to do that as the Standard 
had never been patented — and it never touched 
the surrounding part. Jackson's upper rolling surface 
was made with a margin of a sixteenth of an inch all 
round, but in actual motion that sixteenth of an inch 
was not always preserved and this surface got its 
horizontal motion bj' the impact of the case upon it. 
One of the witnesses stated that when one of Jack- 
son's machines got a little worn he had actually heard 
the knock as tlae thing rattled in the box. In the 
other machine there was in actual working an interval 
of two inches between the rolling surface and 
the jacket, and that space was invariably pre- 
served. Wlien Mr. Brown came to look at 
tlijs machine of Jaclcson's he saw all its defects and 
saw liow a much better machine could bo constructed 
on entirely different principles. Jackson said there 
was want of ventilation. Why, Jackson had been 
copying fron\ ]5rown's since he came to the island 
this time by cutting off pieces and leaving only the 
corners which wfre nivcssary nn liis impact. What 
ho called his upper rolling; sm Incc [iiii;ht to a certain 
extent help tho rolling ui the tea, but it was not 
the true principle of rolling. It was really an upper 
weighting surface on the lowerroUingsurface, but inso- 
car as tho tea was rolled between them it might by 
fourtesy bo called the ujjpor rolling siu'face.' Evf- 
donco could actually bo called to show that unless 
it were raised from time to time to relieve the 
toa, the toa would what they called " ball " nuder- 
neath and " ball " to such an extent that not only 
would this particular part not work but put such a 
strain on as that it might, as in the case of 
Bogawantalawa he thought, actually stop the 
turbine. Mr. Brown saw that much better could be 
done and studied, in all fairness to Jackson 
and in all due protecion of his own interest, 
how be could do it without infringing Jackson's in 
the slighest. Jackson, he saw, gave motion tj his 
upper surface by impact of the jacket, but that 
surface had that this defect, that it did not 
assist in the rolling beyond being a weight. Jackson's, 
he said, was a single action roller, and he set to 
make the triple action machine with the one table 
going round or waltzing round the other and the 
chain of mechanism built up so that motion was 
imparted to tho upper surface by the swindle direct 
from the mechanism of the machine. Jackson's 
jacket he said waa part of the driving mechanism ; 
it was a connecting rod with the case for the tea 
sunk in it ; and the defendant instead of using the 
case for holding the tea leaf, to impart motion to the 
upper rolling surface, took the motion direct from 
the mechftnism which he had a perfect right to do, 
and discarding motion by impact kept his upper rolling 
surface two inches away from the case. He bore 
his jacket in the connecting rod and Jackson 
bad not taken out a patent for that. The more they 
lookeft into these macbinea the more they saw their 
diversity from each other— diversity in construction, 
diversity in design, diversity in action, and diversity 
even in original principle ; and, taking as an illus- 
tra ion the working of en ordinary pump handle in 
compsrisou with the working of a circular handle for 
the purpose of showing that by its continuous action 
I he latter avoided the loss of power that there 
waa in the former, he appealed to the Court whether 
ho was wrong in describing Jackson'a machines as 
cumbrous by going back to the original principle 
of rcfolving circular motion to attain it again instead 
of begiuniDg with circular motion and coneerving it or 
rather multiplying circular motion. The two machines 
he contented wtre wholly diverse, every motion of 
the one being rectillinear and every motion of the 
other circular, or, as the other side called it rotatory 
and eccentric. What Jackson had patented was the 
transmission of motion, and that motion was ob- 
tained by impact, while in the defendant's machine 
there was no motion by impact, the driving 
mechanism being continued right up tlie whole 
machine and down through tbe spindle into the 
upper roiliug surface. Of course the contention 
on the other side was that the whole thing waa 
the jacket and that therefore motion was transmitted 
to the surface per the spindle, per the jacket. His 
conlenti'in, however, waa that what tbe plaintiff 
called the jacket was two things ; it was the con- 
necting rod — part of the driving meoliarism — and the 
wooflen lining was the true jacket. The mere part 
which was wooden in Jackson's model was the only 
part that really resembled the jacket of Kinmoud's 
mnchiiie ; ami what he had done was to put that 
down in the middle of his connecting rod and place 
a bracket ycross it simply for grinding purposes. 
Where Jackson was wrong and misleading waa in 
describing the atlacbmetit of the jacket. The at- 
tachment of ihe jacket to tbe ilriving mechnnism 
was by the bolts which piiased throui^h the slot holes 
by whi h, when the jacket was originally made and 
put in, it was fitted. Soms of the witnesses said 
that the motion of the metal work v/r.s the motion 
of the crank pin, but that was not so, for the crank 
pin harl not only a uiotKin backwards and forwards 
when suppressed by the connecting roil, but it had 
a cirouhir motion also on its own axis which ciroalar 
motion was not imparted to the connecting rod on 
the top of it. Jackfoa wanted to make out thstthetop 
Burfiice (,'ot its niotu.n fromihu crank piu through tho 
Tuetal friims. He treated it as something like P> ramus 
giving Thi.sbe a kisa through the wall. That was 
not so. Ho used the word there more as if it were 
through (ho strata of the upper re.lling surface. In 
other words the jacket d-'reotly moved tuo upper 
roiliug surface when the liniog hit tho upper rolling 
