March t, 1892.] THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 
people would understand it who knew any thing 
about this class of machinery at the time. The 
other side desired to confine the word "jacket" 
simply to the lining. They argued that the lining 
was as much an integral part of the machine as 
any other part. But let the Court look at the 
drawings or at the machine in operation. Let the 
Court remember that even a hostile interest had 
said that the lining was merely a collection of loose 
pieces of wood bound up. It really was almost 
absurd to say that a bundle of loose pieces of wood 
could constitute an integral and independent pai-t 
of the machine. As a matter of fact there was no rea- 
son why the whole superstructure should not be cast 
in one piece. The learned judge might just 
as well say that the silk lining of his 
dress waistcoat was the waistcoat and not 
the cloth outside it, and, according to the arguments 
of the other side, he might just as well say that the 
cloth outside it was a connecting rod between the 
silk lining and the coat outside the waistcoat. The 
court would remember that in the Standard the driv- 
ing gear was fixed firmly to the top rolling sur- 
face and carried the loose jacket, which actually 
rested on the lower surface, about with it and of 
course tore the machine to pieces. To reverse that 
arrangement and drive the weighted lid through the 
jacket, it was necessary in order to reduce friction to 
carry it in suspense just above the surface of the 
under rolling table and the court would remember 
that Mr. Jackson had said why he had to make so 
strong a frame — because it now had to bear all the 
energy communicated to the driving mechanism, and 
it had to be made heavy on account of the large quantity 
of leaf it carried about in circulation, now all the 
difference between the Excelsior and the triple action 
machine, reading the word " jacket " as he asked the 
court to do, was that, whereas Mr. Jackson had thrown 
the strength of his jacket in that body, they (the de- 
fendants) had thrown the strength of their jacket 
on the top of the jacket so that they might drive 
it from above. The defendants simply drove from 
the top of the jacket and the plaintiff from the 
bottom. The defendants had to drive from the top 
because they wished to give an independent motion 
to the rolling surface. The defendants had made 
mucli of their improvements, and had even called 
tlieir attention to tlie improvement in their machine 
that this upper rolling surface had a motion round 
its own axis, while at the same time it had an 
eccentric motion with the jacket and imparted by 
the jacket. Let the Court look at the defendants' 
specification. This was their language there :— 
" Causing it to revolve inside the hollow cylinder 
' K.' while at the same time it has the eccentric 
motion imparted to it by the hollow cylinder ' K.' 
They wanted now to alter the word ' by,' in that, 
to 'of — a very pretty alteration that would be 
indeed. The Court would see for itself how clearly 
that motion was imparted by their jacket as much 
as it was in the Excelsior. The other side, too, now 
laid stress on the fact, that the spindle drove their 
upper rolling surface and he would invite particular 
attention to the fact that really and truly, even in 
the Excelsior, the bow not merely guided the upper lid 
through the spindle but drove it as well. It must be 
so. (Mr. BuowNK : Jackson denied it.) Even Mr. 
Jackson could not deny the fact. It must be so, because 
the lid was constantly coming in contact with the 
spindle, and therefore it imperceptibly drove it as well 
as guided it. Jiut this was not enough for their pur- 
oso and therefore they put the chief driving power 
olow. In the defendants' machine they had made a 
proportionately stronger spindle so that the upper 
rolling surface could lie (-ntii-clv driven through it, 
then, if the Court lield tlmt |iUuiitilT was right in his 
acceptation of the word '■ jiu'licl. " it was clear that the 
defendants machiuo was driven as regarded the eccen- 
tric motion of tlio upper lid liy the jacket in precisely 
the same way as was done in the Excelsior — " though" 
the jacket or •' by means of" the jacket, only the upper 
part of it instead of the lower. He thought he liatt fin- 
ished now tho kernel of the question. Now a famous 
question had been often asked, and Mr. lU-ownc 
had said that for live hours ho could not get an 
answer from Mr. Jackson, as to whether the jacket 
was a part of the driving mechanism. If Mr. Browne 
were to ask Mr. Jackson till Doomsday he would 
not get an answer, for one was asking the question 
on the supposition that what Mr. Jackson meant 
by the jacket was simply the wooden lining, whereas 
Mr. Jackson was answering on the assumption that 
the jacket consisted of the whole superstructrue: the 
Court could see how true their witnesses were in saying 
that this whole upper part was not a part of the 
driving mechanism, but was the driven part; what 
was wanted with the machine was to drive the upper and 
the lower rolling surface over one another so that 
i-eally these were the driven parts. Defendants 
might just as well say any carriage between two 
other carriages in a railway train was a part of 
the driving mechanism ; because it communicated 
motion from the carriage in front to the carriage 
behind it. But was not the driving mechanism 
of the train the locomotive ? What was the 
object of the locomotive except to drive the 
carriages ? And what was their machine built for 
except to drive these two rolling surfaces one over 
the other in a transverse direction? They might just 
as well call an intermediate carriage in a train a 
"connecting rod." Fancy asking a guard to "place 
your bag in a first class connecting rod"' Would 
the guard understand the request? It would be 
absolute nonsense. Of course, if the Court interpreted 
jacket in the same way as defendants did, they 
would have been talking sense. He was not going 
to criticise the mechanics, be was perfectly in- 
competent to do so. Another point on which emphasis 
had been laid was that plaintiff's invention was 
simply the use of a connecting rod, which had been 
known ever since any sort of machinery had been 
constructed If this was so, how was it their great 
rival, Mr. Brown, had not stepped in under the Or- 
dinance and asked the Court to ask the patent 
authorities to revoke his patent on the ground that 
all he had patented was an ordinary connecting rod ? 
That would have relieved them of all difficulty ; then 
they might have patented their machine without 
giving any guarantee. Now, the tea industry was 
not a thing of recent ' date. It began late in the 
seventies, and now they were in the nineties, and he 
thought they might regard this question from another 
point of view, and he hoped this would conclude it. 
He should like to know what Mr. Brown senior 
had been doing all this time between 1877 and 1888. 
When they remembered that from 1848 £o 186.5 his 
inventive genius was flashing with a series of cor- 
ruscations in coffee machinery — in fact he understood 
Mr. Brown today that there was not an improvement 
in coffee which was not the work of his hand; then 
he went to the famous Rajawella water works and 
then flew over to Uva and spun tramways in the air 
just like a spider — and after that— he did nothing! His 
client— to quote the language of his learned friend was 
allowed to come to Ceylon and sell hundreds of machines 
of this principle and not a movement would be made by 
his rival, Mr. Brown. How were they to account for 
that ? Did the court not think it might be accounted 
for ID this way :— He thoujjht Mr Brown had told tbem 
his interest in tea estates and machinery began about 
6 or 8 years ago. That would bring them to about 
1k84, At that very time his inventive faculty awoke. 
Thi>y could not get out of the language of mechanics; 
but the movements of his interest and of his inventions 
became " isochronous" — they began to vibrate at the 
same time and then did the Oourt not think that (he 
dfsire to have a good machine out and to make money 
by it would have spurred on hi.f invention and would 
have quickened his inventive faculties ':' But no : from 
1884 to 1883, he ha'1 told them, he was solving the 
great mechanical difliculty of uetting a part of his 
raaohiuo to have the smne eccentric motion as the 
jicket, anil to invent pulleys and a strap to give 
the part an ioiiopendent rotary motion of its own. He 
thought there w.HS h little rill? of false moilosty about 
that, and ho thought that what Mr. Brown was try- 
ing to do (luring tlin.ie 4 yoara— and which hr unfortu- 
nately had not succeeded ill— was to escape between the 
Scylla of the Excelsior, and the Charybdis of the Kapiji, 
