672 
THt TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 
[March i, 1892. 
motion to the upper rolling surface through the case 
or jacket surrounding it, he contended there was abun- 
dant proof of its noyelty and usefulness. Those com- 
petent to speak on the subject had admitted that there 
had never been in Ceylon before any tea rolling 
machine which had the same arrangement as this 
one, the arrangement being the very reverse of that 
existing in the Standard which had been proved to 
be the most advanced machine of the class at the 
time Mr. Jackson took out his patent; and the 
utility of the invention had been equally well estab- 
lished. The admission had been made by witnesses 
on the other side that the Excelsior was a useful 
machine, and witnesses on the plaintiff's side had 
thoroughly proved its usefulness in respect of the 
almost total absence of friction, of the upper rolling 
surface being free to vertical motion, of being more 
easily fed, and better ventilated, and of being more 
economical as regards time and labour than any other 
machine that had preceded it, all these forms of use- 
fulness being derived from the improved arrangement. 
Asking the Court, as far as it possibly could, to place it- 
self in the position of a mechanical engineer who was 
offering to the public a machine of a particular class, in 
language suited to workmen of ordinary skill who 
were conversant with that particular class of machine, 
he proceeded to quote from a judgment of, he supposed, 
the greatest Patent lawyer that ever lived, the late 
Sir George Jessell, master of the Rolls, in the case 
of Hinks v. The Safety Lighting Company (Law 
Reports, Chancery Division 6G7) to the effect. — " I 
am anxious, as I believe every judge is who knows 
anything of Patent law, to support honest lona fide 
inventors who have actually invented something 
novel and useful, and to prevent their patents from 
being overtm-ned on mere teclmical olij actions, or 
on mere cavillings with the language of the speci- 
fication so as to deprive the inventor of the benefit 
of his invention. This is sometimes called a bene- 
volent mode of construction. Perhaps that is not 
the best term to use, but it may be described as con- 
struing a specification fairly with a judicial anxiety 
to support a really useful invention, if it can be sup- 
ported on a reasonable construction of the patent," 
That was how His Honour had to read the patent. The 
same learned judge in Clark d. Adie (Law Reports to 
Appeal Cases) said—" In construing the specification 
we must construe it like all written documents, taking 
the words and seeing what is the meaning of those 
words when applied to the subject matter " ; and Lord 
Justice James confirmed that when he said, " Of 
course in ascertaining the meaning of words used, you 
endeavour to put yourself as much as possible in 
the position of the person using them." That 
was what he asked His Honour to do in this case- 
to put himself in the position of plaintiff when he 
or his draughtsman wrote the specification in 1881. 
Mr. Browne had asked the Court to hold that the 
plaintiff's invention consisted of what he had left out 
of the plaint, contending that the pith and marrow 
of plaintiff's invention was expressed by the words 
" whereby such rolling surface is left free as regards 
vertical movement from the mechanism operating it," 
and that the defendant had not infringed that because 
he did not allow any freedom of motion to his upper 
rolling surface. The language itself showed that that 
could not be the invention that plaintiff claimed. 
What plaintiff claimed was " the arrangement of 
transmitting motion to the upper rollinf' surface through 
the case or jacket the clause whereby " &c., mean- 
ing that what it stated was one of the results 
or consequences flowing from the arrangement. 
His learned friend said it was singular tliat plaintiff 
should be silent in his specification as to other 
useful results. Well, if the (Jouvt read tlie specifi- 
cation it would find that all the other useful purposes 
served by this improved arrangement were mentioned. 
7t was stated "enclosing the rolling surface A so 
"—thlB was the result— " it can ho weighted to 
i/jvc the required pressure to the leaf." In the 
Standard they could not give the required pressure 
to the leof "but in the Excelsior they could in 
<;onsr;qncncn of this n.^w anangomont^ An- 
other- nsc-ful result mcnlionod m the spccihcatio]i 
wua that iht Wiichiuo was fed through the 
hopper ; and then it was stated that " owing 
to the jacket being carried just clear of the 
table" — that was also a necessary part of the im- 
proved arrangement — " friction, wear and tear is thus 
reduced" that being another useful result. Astothein- 
terpretation of the phrase " transmitting motion 
through the case or jacket," he could not understand 
why tlirouqh should not receive its ordinary meaning 
of "by means of," and he should be very much aston- 
ished if the court held, as Mr. Browne contented, 
that through, must mean in a transverse sense — straight 
through preserving the upper rolling surface always 
in the same plane as the jacket surrounding it. 
The "dead centre " in the case round which 
they could not both move harmoniously was the 
jacket. That was really the only problem the Coui-t 
had to solve, and that was the reason why he had said 
and honestly believed that the Court had no need 
of assessors. The experience of a civil engineer and 
a military engineer had not necessarily settled the 
question. Which the Court had to settle was what 
the engineer who drafted the specification meant 
as the invention, and it really resolved itself into 
the little word " jacket." The passages he would read 
from the specification would show, he argued, that it 
could only mean what the plaintiff said it meant, 
namely the whole of what had been called the 
lining — the frame-work from side to side, from 
crank pin to bar, and all that was attached 
thereto, including the bow bracket. Any workman 
conversant with tea machinery of this class in 
Ceylon at the date when the specification was filed 
could not possibly read it in any other sense than 
the sense in which it had been read by the plaintiff 
and his witnesses who were mechanical engineers. He 
quoted. "In carrying out my invention I employ a 
zig-zag crank shaft having three crank pins formed 
in it. This shaft I place in a vertical position and 
connect the upper crank to the top rolling surface 
by means of a suitable bearing." Now, the little error 
in that expression in itself illuminated the sense 
of the word "jacket." The Court would find that 
this imperfect way of expressing it showed it more 
clearly almost than if it had been most accurately 
expressed. He would show the Court how, directly. 
They knew, and even the other side would admit, 
that the shaft was in no way connected to the top 
rolling surface, and, to show what was meant in that 
connection he would go on to another part of the 
specification, to the part where it said: — "A" is the 
top rolling surface usually composed of wood; "B" 
is a case or jacket loosely enclosing the rolling 
surface " A" so that it can be weighted to give 
the required pressure to the leaf and can be raised 
or lowered within the jacket by means of the chain 
"C" for the purpose of feeding the machine from 
the hopper " 1) " "E" is a bar firing attached to 
the case " B " and arranged to slide in the bearing 
" F," while, together with the crank pin K carries 
the case " B." and prevents it bearing its weight 
on the under table at any time, although the case B 
actually come nearly in contact with it." From 
this the Court could see exactly what the top rolling 
surface in the first part meant — it meant the whole of 
the machinery that was superposed above the under 
table which it came nearly in contact with, in fact, 
there was no doubt that when the Court read through 
the specifications it would come to this conclusion. 
He should refer to it again when he came to discuss 
the question so much pressed about as to whether it 
was a part of the driving mechanism, and the one part 
carried the leaf about in its rectilinear progress to 
and fro, backwards and forwards, helping to circulate 
the tea in the course of rolling while the pressure and 
weight upon it came from the actual lid, or upper 
rolling surface, but, consi-^ered as a whole, the whole 
of the superstructure, with its lid, frame, box and bow 
was the upper rolling surface of the machine. This part 
of the specifications showed conclusively what was 
meant by the jacket, and there was the last passage he 
could quote :— "Friction wear and tear is thus reduced, 
and by slackening the screw S the rolling surface 
A with the jacket B can be titled over." He thought 
that was conclusive as shewing the sense in which 
Mp. Jacksoia U3(?cl tlie word and as all working 
