674 
1"HE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. [March i, 1892. 
&hd bring out an invention that would clear the two, 
and now he thought he h«d done no because he had 
made his roller round instead of square, as they had 
made their's but rhiefly on acoutit of two thiugp, Datiiely, 
the eccentric mi tion of thci jacket and the upper lid^ 
together in the same plane, and the indepnident 
motion round its own axis of the upper lid by 
means of the pulleys. They would give defeudaiits' 
machine this : they would admit that pliiutiff's 
machine had no eccentric motion, and their upper 
lid had no independent rotatary movement of its own ; 
but that did not give tho defendant's any ri^ht to 
patent their machine. For the purpose of argument-, 
he would admit that defendant's machiue was very 
muchs upenor to the Excelsior; and that l;he differences 
were improvomentB, but this was all irrelevant. 
Defendants must not take over plaintiff's leading 
principle and improve on that They might be 
nseful improvements and they might be patentable, 
but it defendant's were going to patent them, they 
should take care to distinguish their invmtion from 
that described in a prior patent, and claim only what 
belonged to them. Of course that would not be enouj^h 
because they would have to get a license from plaintiff 
or lay themselves open to an notion for infringe- 
ment. They had patented their invention — perhaps 
these improvements had carried the day for thi m 
and they had got their letters patent ; but defen- 
dants must not use thair machine in public without 
plaintiff's leave if, as he asked the Court to hold, 
they had taken the leading principle of plaintiff's 
machine. With the exception of the eccentricity of 
the motion of the j«cket the upper lid and the 
independent rotary motion the machines were precisely 
the same. The Court could not look at them without 
seeing this, and assuming tliat the Court concurred 
with the specifications in the way that he said any ordi- 
nary intelligent man would construe them, the only 
authorities he would ask the Court to refer to except 
the passages he had read in Johnson's Patented Manual, 
waa the well-known case of Procter v. Bennis, in 
Law Journal Chancellor's Reports, vol. .07 and there 
the question was an arrangement for the automatic 
feeding and a furnace. As the. Lord Justice Faid, 
furnaces had been ted ever since the world began, 
to the object waa a well-known object ; they had 
been fed in all kinds of ways, and so long as the way 
of doing it was new, that waa enough. Lord Bowen 
perhaps put it more concisely ; he said " what is the 
substance of the invention were It i« a machine 
which prodncos a suocesafnl intermitipnt retiring 
stoker," and bo on, and wound up by eayi; g " ttie 
simple question ie not whether the addition is a 
material one or whether the ommisaion is material, bnt 
you must go back again and ask yourselves whether 
what has been taken is the Hubstauce and essence of 
the invention." The Court must put all likeness aside. 
The machines might be exactly like one another, aa 
his learned friend had said, and yet tho leading prin- 
ciple might not have been abstracted from them and 
they might be very different in structure and yet con- 
tain the leading principle. If that were so, no mat- 
ter what the difference were, no matter what was 
left out of the Excelsior or added to the triple action 
if the same idea was in both — then the Court must 
take the plaintiff's part and prevent defendants 
from using his machine till plaintiff's license 
expired. He also asked the court to bear in 
mind the circumstances under which Mr. Jaclt- 
Bon came to Ceyhm. He was tho i>ioneer of 
nseful tea machinery in Oeylon, and the Excelsior was 
a pioneer invention and he asked tho Court to bear 
that in mind. The Court was not to think of India 
or Java. He asked the Court if this patent- had been 
takijn over by defendants as a pioneer invention, and 
that was a very important point. As Lord Justice 
Bowen said " Now I think it goes to the root of the 
case to remember that this as was described by one is 
the counsel was roally a pioneer invention, and it is by 
the right of that that it sooms to me we ought to con- 
sider tlie qucHtion. Whether there have been variatioi o 
or omissions and additions which prevent tho machines 
which is com ' ' ' ' 
of the plaintiff ! With regard to t'le variations, I take 
precisely the same view that the Lord Justice has taken 
and I will not travel over the matter which he has gone 
over in detail. With regard to the additions and 
omissions it is obvious that additions may be an im- 
provement, and teat omissions may be an improve- 
ment, but the mere fact that there is an omission 
does not enable you to take the plaintiff's Patent. 
Ho had now a very few words to say as to the 
first defendant's liability. The other side had tried 
to exempt him from any liability, but by his own 
mouth he had condemned himself, for he had faid he 
was the agent of the Company to sell the machines, 
which thev imported under a license from him. (Mr. 
BnowNE: Pardon me, not the agent for a srecial 
purpose. He has not admitted that. He is one of the 
employee of the Company.) Never mind whether he 
was one of a hundred or the solitnry agent; it was 
well known in law that an agent could not plead his 
f-gency — he was equnlly within his principal a tort 
feasor. It was within his knowledge that these 
machines had been sold, and he had joined with the 
Company in their answer, and instead of putting in an 
independent answer saying he knew nothing about 
it, he joined with the Company in putting the 
issue before the Court. If there had been in- 
fiingemei t or not it was impossible to say, if the 
second defendant was guilty that he was not equally 
guilty. 
With this counsel resumed his seat, and the Court 
reserved judgment. 
)(l aouiMons wnicn prevent mo maonines i 
plained of from being an infringemeut | 
SOME INTERESTING QUININE 
STATISTICS. 
The following figures show the qnanties of oinchona- 
ba;k offered at the auctions in Amsterdam and Londou 
during the year 1891: — 
In London (24 auctions) 17,121 packages Ceylon, 
17,152 ditto Bdtish lurlian, 1,493 Java, 1,113 ditto S. 
American Oalisaya, 4,827 of var.ous kinds; total 41,706 
packages. 
In Amsterdam (10 auctions) a total of 42,520 pack- 
ages bark, slmost exclusively from Java. 
The equivalent of sulphate of quiuiue represented 
by the total quanti y of cinchona sold to manu- 
facturers at the London auctions of 1891 is esti- 
mated at 96,378 kilos., and that sold at the Amsterdam 
auctions (including 15,663 killos. represented by a large 
private sale of bark) at 135,395 kilos. The total 
quantity of quiuiue bought by all the makers in 
Amsterdam a'ui London list year is theretore approxi- 
mately 531,773 kiioa., or 8,181,000 oz. With regard to 
the quantities of quinine in the bark bought by the 
various manufacturers, the Amsterdam statistics alone 
offer a fairly reliable guide. They disclose the loUow- 
ing result : — 
The Aaerbach work bought 29,467 kilos, quinine; 
the Brunswick works, 26,132 kilos.; the Mannheim 
and Amsterdam work?, 16,147 kilos.; the Philadelphia 
factory, 15,148 kilos.; the New York factory, 12,969 
kilos.; Messrs. Howard & Sons, 6,737 kih s. ; the 
Frankfort on-Main and Stuttgart works, 6,190 kilos.; 
Pelletier's works, 2 872 kilos.; Taillendier's works 1,700 
kilos.; various other makers, 2,370 kilos. To these 
fifjures must bo adiled 8,964 kilos, purchased by the 
Auerbach wetks, and 6,699 kilos, purchased by oth-..-r 
German works by ptivnte treaty in Amsterdam. 
In coniideiing these figures it must alfo be 
borne in mind that if the figures for London 
could be added to those given, the retult would 
reverse the positions of several buyers. The Mannheim 
factory, for instance, buys more than one-third of 
tin bark sold at the London auctions, whereas tho 
purchases of Auerbach and Brunswick in this market 
are comparatively insignificant. 
Tho statistics we have given show that Germany 
bought 93,599 kilos, or 691 per cent, of the quinine in 
tiie bark fiuld in Amsterdam. Inclading the bark ob- 
