March i, 1892.] THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 
66? 
things coniraOD between two *-.hiiigs v h'cli tried to 
a taui or'e rehult, 1111(1 thp inf ringenx-nv only consisted 
ill one man roljbing the other of ilie particular 
method which that man's mind had discovered 
to attain Ihe particuUr result. The questioD for 
His Fon-'iir to decide hn-e wan whether there 
had been that piracy ou the part of Mr. Browne— 
wIieihi'T he had in any vsa> robbed Mr. Jcckson 
of the fruit of his industry aiKl thought by adopUug 
tho proco-s for wliifih he li d obtained a patent. He 
then referred tho Judgo to Hie case of Ourfcis and 
that r'porte'-i in the Times L-iw Report?, Good- 
Five's Patent Cases in 3, Liw fleports (Chancer 
Division) and I L:i\v Repoits (Houso of Lords), As we 
read that cHse wha>. it laid down wns that where an 
invention cnnsipt; d of a particular mefius of attain- 
ing a known result the iflveotion ot other means to 
attain that same known result was not an in- 
fringement. Applying that principle to this cafe 
■what the Judge had to df cide was whether Brown 
had employed the same means as Jackson to attain the 
known result. Ho also referred to the case of 
Bovill, 11 Exchequer, a summary of which was given 
hv Edmo^dd and which was ou all fours with this case. 
The next case he quoted was that of the Automatic 
"Weighing MachmeOo., v Kniehi. P.O.R., also referred 
to by B'lmond; and also < 'nshmand Hnd GreeuerfGriffin'a 
Patent Cases), and Goswell and Bishop. Thepe were 
the special au'horitiea he wished to put before the 
Conrl, and an showing the principle which always 
guided Judeee in these ''ases he might refer to 
Crosslev r. Potter in Mcliorie's Patent Oases, namely 
confining the patentee to the strict words of his 
specification »nd to the strict description of the 
particular invention which ho claimed as his 
own, 80 that other improvements might not be 
obstructed and other ingenious and enterprising mem- 
bers ot the community might distinctly know what 
they wero prohibited from doing. The guiding prin- 
ciple of courts had been to protect that particnlar 
form of property wh'oh a man made his own by 
patent but, at the same time not to make that a sort 
of slumblingblook in th"? way of future improve- 
ments an I itivtnticns. He submitted that_ the means 
by which the machines iu this case arrived at the 
known result were totally differ, nt. 
EVIDENCE FOK THE DEFENCE. 
Mr. John Buown examined by Mr. Dodwell Browne 
deposed: — I was brought up as a 0. B. I had a 
great deal of work to do in engineering. Besides 
my experience in civil engineering I had to do with 
railways, being assistant to Mr. Gibb on the Aberdeta 
Railway. That was about 1844-45 and about 1846 
and 1847 I was employed by the famous house of 
Miller, l;-!2, George St., Edinburgh,— in their Edin- 
burgh and London offices — who made about one-half 
of the railways in Scotland. In 1848 I came to 
Ceylon. I came out entirely for engineering work origi- 
nally and have continuously liad to do with mechanical 
engineering since then. 1 was for six years engaged 
erecting what was known as the Rajawella Water- 
works. In coffee machinery I think I effected nearly 
all the improvements of any importance which were 
ever effected upon it. I also have the credit of being 
the author of "Drying coffee by heated air "—the only 
process that was ever found successful ; in fact 
-desiccating it. I took up the practice of aerial tram- 
ways now established in the Uva country in Ceylon, 
which have proved a great success. I designed the 
triple-action roller. I did not patent it myself in 
Ceylon, but 1 made my son a present of it. I first 
dir'octod luy attention to tea rolling machinery about 
18(i.5 or 18(;t;. That was in London. There was no tea in 
Ceylon then that I knew of. Between 1848 and 
1805 I first saw Kinniond's machine in London — a 
full size machine. Practically it had all the com- 
ponent parts, though not fully developed of tho 
Standard, a model of which I see in court. I first 
saw tho Excelsior roller in 1885 or 188(1 ; that was 
full size and in Ceylon. I had began to design tea 
rollers after seeing that one of Kiuinoiid's iu London, 
lu lysi I Uivd cUiivviuga o£ tho triple-action bitt 
they were not anything like complete. A-bout 1866 
Mr.Willianison one of the pioneers of tea in India had 
spoken to me to see if I could not assist him in tea machi- 
nery. The completed triple-action roller was brought 
out in 1888. Practically I had the idea of tea-rolling 
machinery since 1866. It took me about three years 
to see how I- could drive the upper rolling surface — 
to give it rotatory motion revolving on its own axis. 
In the end I gave it the rotatory motion by seeing 
that the crank pin if extended had the same motion 
that I required for the upper rolling surface. It had 
the same rotatory and circular motions. When I 
completed my designs for the triple-action roller 
I was well acquainted with Jackson's Excelsior. 
The first time I saw Jackson's specification of the 
Excelsior was j think in 1891. When I saw .Jackson's 
machine first at work on the estates I thought it was 
wrongfully designed to make a. good tea roller. I took 
particular exception to the method of driving the upper 
rolling surface because it limits its horizontal motion 
to that imparted to the case or jacket. I also took 
exception to the mechanism as being wasteful of power 
and difficult to arrange. It was my idea that the 
horizontal motions of the top rolling surface and the 
case or jacket being identical, was a mistake. The 
fixed upper rolling surface holding the leaf under 
pressure prevents the machine from performing its 
functions. If charged with leaf and a hard rolling 
pressure applied the charge will not circulate in the 
box, the top of the charge being held by the station- 
ary lid or upper rolliirg surface. I have often 
seen the Excelsior working, and the effect of what 
I have been saying is that it is necessary to raise 
the upper rolling surface from time to time to 
allow the charge to be broken up. If the lid is rapidly 
raised after rolling under pressure for some time a 
print (an impression) of the underside of the upper 
rolling suface will be seen on the top of the charge, 
proving that the leaf or charge did not move or 
circulate under the stationary lid. In fact the machine 
has uo top rolling surface. That is not the case in my 
triple-action roller ; it has totally different motions. 
The top rolling surface in it is continually 
changing its position both horizontally and 
vertrically and it would therefore be impossible 
for it to leave a print on the charge— horizontally 
giving forth circular and rotatory ^motion. The 
mechanism of the triple-action is as follows : One 
of the two pairs of crank shafts are driven by a 
pair of bevel wheels, and the two opposing cranks on 
each shaft are connected by strong castings, termed 
connecting rods. He showed on the model what were 
the connecting rods, and said everything connecting 
crank pins are connecting rods ; it did not signify 
in what form or shape. The one connecting rod will 
not move without the other. That is the mechanism 
as regards the case or jacket or lower rolling surface. As 
regards tlie upper rolling sui-face the mechanism of it 
is that the connecting rod imparts circular motion 
through the double bow bracket which carries two 
bearings ; the bearings impart circular motion to 
the spindle, to the lower end of which is attached 
the upper rolling surface. The upper end of the 
spindle is attached to the lever which regulates its 
vertical movement. Between the bows of the bracket 
is a pulley driven by a belt from another pulley 
carried on the extension of the upper crank pin of 
the driven crank shaft ; the belt connecting the two 
pulleys imparts circular motion to the upper rolling 
smface throug i the spindle. I claim that my upper 
roller is not free as regards vertical motion 
from the mechanism operating it. Through the 
spindle I convey all the movements which the upper 
rolling surface possesses, both horizontal and vertical, 
and no part of the upper rolling siud'ace or any of 
its adjuncts comes into contact with the case or 
jacket in any way whatsoever. If it did come into 
contact with tho case or jacket I could not drive it; 
it would cause so gi'cat friction that it would prac- 
tically not be a working machine. By removing 
from the model of my triple-action roller as I 
now do all above tho lower rolling siu-face I lea\e 
in the model only tho lower connecting rod 
with tho lower table resting upon it, and 
also the hoiuplatcs or slideljars whiuU simply 
