March i, iSga.J rHF TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 
drew that plan put the letter N to represent the wheel 
hf is uot an engineer. (Mr. Withers remarked that m 
the specification ' N ' is the wheel.) A specification 
ought to refer more particularly to the class of material 
make the machine, I kuciw what a drawinR is, I 
have been at drawing for 40 years and the 
man who put it in the boss and meant it to 
be wheel was not an engineer. It uppears to 
rae that the ho'^s was extended for a purpose 
was why N is put where it is on the drawing. I 
say that although in the specification N is described 
as the wheel. I forget where my first machine 
was sent to in Ceylon, and I cannot say what 
number was on it. I recognise a drawing ot my 
machine, but it has evidently been got up 
for the purpose of a photographer ; it is a 
picture rather thiua drawing. (Mr. Browne said he 
would put Jackson in the bos so that tlie drawing 
might be identified. Mr. Withers indicated he would 
not put it in evidence.) In the drawing the upper 
surface is a working fit, but no machine of mine 
haa ever been made l.ke that, having contact. 
I know Mr. Jaa. Sinclair of Bearwell estate where 
there is a triple action roller. He never sugirested 
to mo tbat there should be a clear space of two 
inches all round between the case and the upper- 
rolling surface. If he didi have f ntirel.v forgotten, I nm 
perfectly clear that rone of my machines was evor 
made a working fit. The only thing that the draw- 
ing disclose is that they were revfr meant to come in 
contact with the jacket. At first before it was 
known the idea was that the lid must rise up 
between the edj;e of the upper rolling surface and 
the jacket so that there was a small space made 
but no contact. Do the drawings in C. lombo or in India 
disclose an^ thing else but a working fit ? Do they 
sho.* anvthing to indicate two inches clear 
space ? They do not disclose two inoheo clear 
Vaoe. At that time we did not know thst 
two inches space would be allowed. A working fit 
means in relation to the work that it has to do, and the 
work that this has to do is to revolve inside the case. 
Had there been contact it would not have been 
driven. In your drawings in India and Ceylon what 
space is indicated? A.bout a sixteenth of an inch 
all round. Mr. Withers— just like the Excelsior. 
Was there anything in the plaintiff's specifications 
and drawings to prevent him making the whole 
upper part of the roller, that is to say, the bow 
bracket, the lining, and the shell of the upper 
rolling surface in one piece if he desired so to do. 
There is everything against it in the specifi- 
cation and in the drawings. Firstly the draw- 
ings represent the case or jacket by four letters B. 
Those letters refer only to that part which is com- 
monly made of wood, and no practical engineer if he 
had meant to refer to the whole piece would have 
made the mistake of putting them on that portion. 
There was, on the other hand, a very good reason for 
his putting the letters where he did, for he had to ar- 
range for the case or jacket being raised or lowered 
vertically within what I call the connecting rod. No 
practical engineer would have called this connecting 
rod the case or jacket. If the case were in one piece 
the case would be immovable within the connecting 
rods. I say that the connecting rods and the wooden 
parts aro two distinct portions each having different 
functions. My definition of a connecting rod is a bar 
of iron or any other strong material which may be 
shaped in any fashion to suit the circumstances in 
which it is employed. They are of various forms. In 
the Excelsior it takes the form of being attached to a 
revolving crank pin at one end and to a guiding rod so 
that it may bo the means of converting circular into 
rectilinear motion. It could have no other name in 
machines. In the Triplex the connecting rods are 
nsod to transmit a revolving motion from one crank shaft 
to another. There aro dozens of connecting rods. 
'I'lio best definition is to be found in Kanken's ap- 
plied machines. —O- — Your definition does not cor- 
rosi)Oiid with anything that Uankon says. — Howovcr 
you say ho gives a good definition and you subscribe 
"to what ho says?— vl. — Yes, if ho had given the 
doliuition I havo givou his book would have been ten 
SI 
times its size. (Laughter.) I say that this connecting 
rod in the tea roller has all the elements of the 
connecting rod of a locomotive. It has the elements 
and resembles it in structui-e — I won't say in ap- 
pearance because that depends how you look at it. 
My. definition of a "connector" is anything that con- 
nects two shafts but it may not be a connecting rod— 
it may be a belt or a chain. There would be no crank pin 
involved with a chain or belt whereas you must have a 
crank pin with a connecting rod. — Q. — Now, how comes 
it that in your son's specification the word connecting 
rod is notiised at all ? — [Mr. D. F. Browne objected on 
the ground that what they had written was v-ltra 
vires — the question being what they had actually 
manufactured and also on the ground that the 
witness was being asked a question as to what 
somebody else had done]— I did not write the 
specification.— — Did you draw it up or assist in 
drawing it up ? — A. — I handed over the dx-awings 
to a patent agent in London in order that he might 
draw up the specification as there are legal formalties 
about which I know nothing. I was called to see 
the specification on mail-day and I was very busy 
and I did not read it through very carefully before 
signing it. I simply looked through the claim and 
saw that was correct. I admit that in the body of 
the specification the Patent Agent should have been 
more careful. The drawings are jorrect: I made them. 
There was no need to mention the connecting rod 
in my specification,— the drawings represented it. 
It would have been useless to put it in the speci- 
fication (witness shown drawing). Will you tell me 
how you came by this drawing V— I believe it is my 
private property. Mr., Withers:— It is a cei-tified 
copy from the Patent office. Witness :— There was 
a drawing put in and taken back. Mr. Withers:— 
Well this is a true copy, certified by the Patent 
office.— Witness : That was withdrawn from the 
Patent Office. It was put in by mistake. — Q. — Look- 
ing at the specification and plan what in your 
specification is lettered as " K " is it not a hollow 
cylinder all through?— A. — Well it could not be, 
if the specification said so the, specification is not 
correct : In the plan the letter " K " is on the 
connecting rod. Well, the central portion of the 
connecting rod is a hollow cylinder, and it receives 
the case or jacket. I don't think this plan is a right 
one. I cannot tell where it came from. The crank 
pins here are shown all wrong ; as far as I know 
not one of my machines has gone to India, but the 
Roller is patented there. The Ceylon specification 
was made about April 24th, 1888. My son got the 
patent about the 24th of October.' The delay 
occurred in our withdrawing one plan and putting 
in another. It may be that my application for 
a patent in India was not made till the 28th of 
February, 1889. I don't remember. I cannot say 
tliat I have read my Indian specification. A Patent 
Agent made it out for me and I signed it and sent 
it. The Ceylon specification was withdrawn with 
the plan, and a new specification filed. If the 
Indian specification differs in wording from the 
local one which you have it is due to that. 
Mr. Withers said it differed in toto. 
The Indian specification was never withdrawn ; but 
the Ceylon one was. Oh, I remember, there is a 
very good reason for it. When that specification 
for Ceylon was first sent in the leading partner of 
the house was away from home, and the junior partner, 
I think, wrote that specification. It was done hur- 
riedly, and when the senior partner came home I 
think that he and I must have seen these errors and 
made the specification right. I admit that the laji- 
guixge in the two specification is different but they both 
relate to the same machine. (I. — I think you will be 
surprised tc hear that the plans scut to India were 
not the same as those sent to Ceylon ? Woidd you 
be surprised to hear they luo entirely different ? — 
a. — That is an utter impossibilitv ; it could have 
been uotliing of tbL> sort. — Well, look yourself 
(Handed plans) Those are uot identical ?—(i. — The 
machines are identical but the cranks arc shown 
differently and the hornplatos lu-e slightly different, 
but they serve tho same purpose. 
Mr. D. F. Bitowxi; said tho pluu iiUcgccl tg have been 
