€^6 
rHP Tt^OPSCAL AGRICULTURIST. 
[March i, 1892 
surface. Was that the way in which the upper 
suffice in the defendant's machine was knocked 
about frona side to S'de in ihe horizintai pleiie? 
ManifeBtly not; there was no impact on it all. That 
was the gist of the whole matter. The description 
of the metal round the wood was as great a mis- 
description as Mr. Jackson himself made in the very 
opening of his specification. Mr, Jackson excused Lim- 
self for the patent action in Calcutta on the ground 
that Kiomond nnd he were novices in rlrawinp out 
patent specifications, and consequently tbey fell foul 
of each other. Mr. Jackson apparently was as gre?«t 
a novice in drawing out a specification as regards 
the Excelsior as he wa,s at Calcutta He said : " In car- 
rying out my invention I employed a zig zaf; crank shaft 
having three crank pins on it- This thaft I place in 
a vertical position and connect the upper crank pin 
to the upper rolling surface by means of ti suitable 
bearing, and in a similar way I connect the immediate 
crank pin to the lower rolling surface, and the lower 
crank pin to a wheel or disc tuniing in a fixed centre." 
Now in direct examination— there might be no record 
of the expre.isiou beoanee it was so hurriedly or en 
passant uttered — Mr. Jackson, holding his hands for a 
moment over the machine, said " in fact this ia all 
the upper rolling surface" — treating not only "A" 
but what he called his jacket as the upper rolling 
surface too. That was what hemfant in the beginning 
of his specification because the bearing was not 
connected with this in any way. "K" had only uu 
attachment to this like the attachment of Pyramus 
to Thisbe, through the hole in the wall ; but it 
was not an actual attachment; it was only a 
Bsntimental, a quasi — (Mr. Dokkhobst: — A Platonic)— 
or Jackson attachment. Hia deecription was sin- 
gularly unfortunate in that respect unless they re- 
garded all as the upper rolling suiface. One of his 
first questions to Mr. Jackson was — what is the 
upper rolling surface? — is it A ? to which he an- 
swered yes, because he (Mr Browne knew that when 
they came to read that with the admission Jackson 
would be non-plnssed when be (Mr. Browne) said 
where is tbe attachment of " A" by a suitable bear- 
ing, when the question was put there was one of the 
usual lengthy answers. Mr Withers in his opening 
address used words to the effect that the dis-simili- 
tur'e of machints might rot prevent one being an 
infringement of tbe patent of the other. In a similar 
way he (Mr. Browne) might say that the similitude 
of machines might not result in one being an in- 
fringement of the patent of tbe other. For his 
machine however he claimed that it was wholly dis- 
similar to Jackson's in every respect. The witnesses 
had trifd to prove various points of simiiarily, but by 
his comparison of the models he contended that they 
were quite dissimilar- When they said that the whole 
thing was the case or jacket th. y were really describing 
the connecting rod and the jacket, and it was clef.r thut 
Jackfon's bearings were not the same as the horn- 
plates of the defendant. Really Messrs. Browp and 
Hutson had proved the defendants' c ise in provii g that 
the frame was a connecting rod. Of the inventor of the 
triple action roller he thought, it would bo sufficient 
to say that he had been, he thought, since 1848 
in tho colony; at least he began bis work out here in 
1848 on the hills of Uva, and praciic.lly he was 
directing his attention to Siroccos— he d;ired say Mr. 
MaGuire might faint if he wer-> in Court— and olher 
drying machinery at a time when he supposed, to 
borrow a phiaso fiona Mark Twain's to-.st of " the 
Babi^s,"Mr. Jackson had no other tlmught cngnging 
his mind as to the transmission of mixtion and the 
jjurposo to be snbstrvfd thereby than how t'< <iet hjs 
biu toe into his raoulh to suck it as ho hiy in his 
cradle. Mr. BruWii who was a C. B. sawthogriuid 
father of Jackson b mMohiiie iu IKO.') in London — if the 
Standiir.l was the parent the original idoi of the 
Standard must be the grnniifalhcir of Mr. .Tackson's 
rnachini-— and setting to work us a mcchuni'al en- 
gineer lie Hot):-rly iicvihf'! a machine whi h be said 
in no rcJip'Xt iufriri^jed Jaiiksoi 'c. He b.id utilized 
rjolhiog except what was common pro,,etry to all iu- 
veutofB, ocpecially Ooylon inveutorB— tho driving of the 
upper surface by a crank t«ken from the driving mec- 
haiiism. Beoau-e he saw it was u^elul be had re- 
tained what Jackson hid discarded because he thought 
it was useless. Tbe design was in his mind tor 
months, — (Mr. Brown : — Years) for years; and in the 
end the idea struck him to gear at the train of 
mechanism a stage higher, put a pulley on it and 
a corresponding pullev on the central vertic..! .shaf'r, 
and tho thing was done. With his experience he 
did not start rashly in life w-h an action against 
Kiumond and then practically buy Kinmond's shoes to 
walk about the world in as an inventor, as the plaintiff 
did. He started absolutely with his own inventive 
faculties and inveted a machine which he asid was 
original and in no way infringed Jackson's because it 
did not impart motion to the npp r rolling surface 
through the case or jacket. He believed he would 
have the advantage of calling as witnecses two gentle- 
men who were thoroughly scientific mechanics. One 
of them in his early career passed, he believed, first 
out of Woolwich, and th'? other though he was the 
jonnger won whai might be called the blue 
ribbon of science at W< olwich iu the shape of 
the Whitworth scholsrship. Th°se two witnesses 
were not merely men of hammer, tile nnd vice, 
but men v/a-> had really studied mechanics thoroughly, 
and if iipcessary Kemln, Skrine and others might 
be called who he thought would bear out Mr. Brown's 
cuntention in this case. The first defendant in tho 
case, Mr. Alfred Brown, was at present entitled to 
a verdict because nothing had been proved against 
him. So far as he could see tbe gentleman had need- 
lesely hccn made a def<ni'ant in the case. It was 
said that he had patented a machine out here and 
issued a license 'o the second desendant, to make or 
US!) or sell machini-s, but he oid not know that the 
issuing of that license constituted any cause of action. 
They had not proved that be had imported or acid a 
fingie machine, and on beirig oiillc d he would State that 
he had done neither of those things. Counsel was 
ready to admit that Mr. A Brown had issued 
license as pantentee in Ccylcn to others to iise the 
machine, but tl at was not alleged as a cause of 
action against him, nor if it were alleged would it 
make a cause of action against him. In the conclu- 
ding part of bis address Mr. Browne referred to a 
question of law arising out of Mr. .Tackeou's affirmative 
reply t.i the question that Ixe had applied for an 
arrangement new at the time of inverting circular 
into reciproce.ting motion. Well, the d- lendant's machine 
did not coni/ert circular in*o reciprocating motion, 
and therefore there was no infringment in that matter. 
Further if Mr. Jackson had patented a particular 
means or method of arriving a,t a result he only patented 
that means, find it was open to tbe defi-ndant to 
attain the result in anv other way he liked. 
Mr. Bbowne concluded his address at 3-15, having 
spoken for three hours. 
Mr. DOENHORST followed on the legal aspe t of the 
case. Accordiotr to Edmo'nd's work on patents page, 217, 
"an ii fringement is an act which comes within 'he terms 
of ihe p' ohibition in the patent," and a pstent was " a 
monopoly granted and contains a prohibitory clause." 
In order to find out whtit Mr. J&i-kson chiime t as bis 
peculiar monopoly they to look at his statement of 
claim, Rud there it appeart- d tha' he claimed t-j t^ave 
discovered «. means of transmittii'g mo'ion ti. the upper 
rolling surface. He must stand or full by 'hat claim 
and prove that the defendanig in their machine 
transmitted motion in the same way, which 
he ha 1 entirely failed to do, for BIr. Browne 
had shown that in the triple action the 
motion was transmitti d to the upper rolling snrface 
ri rough :hi' g- ariiig above, and it diri n"t matter 
whether that id a wa? bormwed from the Standard or 
net, as rhat wrts common property. As had often been 
said by Judges of emim nee, if tbe mere fact that 
corlaiu parts of one machine resembled cer'ain parts 
of the alleged infringing machine were to be grounds 
for re garding Ihe attached m' chine as »n iufr'nge- 
raeut of the other, in^'enti'i i would stop ; there would 
be no more improvement in anything. It was nei tssary 
iu t/he order of thiuga that there must be certain 
