JULV  I,  1895.] 
THE  TROPICAL 
AGRICULTURIST. 
59 
rolled  or  curled  the  leaves  between  their  surfaces. 
Neither  the  ‘‘Excelsior  " nor  the  “Rapid”  was  in 
any  sense  a new  machine.  They  were,  both,  of  them 
modifications  of  the  mechanism  which  was  employed 
in  the  ‘‘  Standard”  machine,  and  the  only  point  to 
be  determined  in  the  case  was  whether  the  inoditications 
or  improvements  which  constituted  the  respondent's 
invention,  or  a substantial  part  of  them,  had  been 
appropriated  by  the  appellants.  The  novelty  and  utility 
of  the  respondent's  modifications  or  improvements  were 
not  challenged.  They  related  to  tne  upper  section  of 
the  apparatus,  and  therefore  an  inquiry  into  the  in- 
fringement of  which  the  respondent  complained  did 
i ot  involve  any  comparison  between  the  parts  of  his 
and  the  appellants’  machine  other  than  the  upper 
rolling  table,  the  case  which  had  already  been  gen- 
erally described,  and  the  mechanism  by  which  those 
were,  more  or  less  directly,  connected  with  each  other 
and  with  the  actuating  shaft.  In  all  three  machines 
the  upper  rolling  table  and  the  case  rested  upon,  or 
Were  in  some  manner  connectei  with,  a sta;e  or 
frame  work  which  was  directly  geared  to  and  actu- 
ated by  the  shaft.  In  the  “ Standard  ” machine, 
which  represented  the  state  of  public  knowledge  in 
Ceylon  at  the  date  of  the  respondent’s  patent, 
the  upper  rolling  table  was  rigidly  connected  with 
the  stage  or  framework  which  was  moved  back- 
wards iiiid  forwards  in  a line  nearly  at  right  angles 
to  the  direction  in  which  the  lower  table  was 
similarly  moved.  In  one  respect  the  upper  mec- 
hanism differed  materially  from  the  device  adop- 
ted either  by  the  respondent  or  by  the  appellants 
The  case  for  retaining  the  leaves  during  the  process 
of  rolling  was  made  to  cover  the  upper  table,  and 
was  carried  along  with  it  by  the  table  when  in  motion, 
fresh  leaves  being  introduced  through  an  aperture  in 
the  top  of  the  case,  which  was  fitted  with  a lid.  In  the 
respondent’s  p>atent  machine  the  case  was  made  open  at 
the  top  and  detached  from  the  upper  rolling  tabic, 
being  rigidly  connected  with  the  stage  of  frame- 
work, The  table  w’as  placed  incide  the  case,  but 
not  connected  with  it  or  with  the  stage,  and,  within 
the  case,  it  was  allowed  an  inch  or  two  of  free  play  all 
round.  Accordingly,  when  the  machine  was  at  work, 
the  upper  table  did  not  move  until  it  came  into  contact 
with,  and  was  pushed  or  impelled  by,  the  inner  surface 
of  the  case.  In  the  appellants’  apparatus,  a case  open 
at  the  top  was  also  used,  its  form  being  in  no  material 
respect  different  from  that  of  the  case  which  was 
employed  by  the  respondent  in  his  patent  machine. 
But  the  appellants’  rolling  table  was  not  detached, 
and  was  not  allowed  to  have  free  play  in  any  direc- 
tion. It  was  rigidly  connected  with  the  stage  or  frame- 
work, and  was  directly  actuated  by  the  revolving  shaft. 
It  was  altogether  independent  of,  and  derived  no 
motion  or  impulse  from  the  surrounding  case.  The 
claim  made  by  the  respondent  in  his  specification, 
which  the  app  Hants  had  been  held  to  have  infringed, 
was  in  these  terms : — “ The  arrangement  of  transmit- 
ting motion  to  the  top  rolling  surface  through  the 
case  or  jacket  surrounding  it,  whereby  such  rolling 
surface  is  left  free  as  regards  vercical  movement 
from  the  mechanism  operating  it.”  The  respondent’s 
patent  being  not  for  a new  machine,  but  for  improve- 
ments upon  the  mechanism  of  an  old  and  known 
machine,  his  exclusive  right  could  not  be  permitted 
to  exceed  the  exact  terms  of  his  specification.  Assuni- 
iim  that  the  words  “case  of  jacket,”  in  the  claim 
just  quoted,  meant  the  case  which  their  Lordships  had 
already  described,  it  appeared  to  them  to  be  clear  that 
the  appellants’  machine  did  not  violate  the  exclusive 
privilege  of  the  respondent.  No  motion  was  transmitted 
to  the  appeallants’  rolling  table  through  that  case  : and 
the  table  had  not  free  play  in  any  direction,  although 
it  might  be  vertically  raised  or  lowered,  when  requisite, 
by  means  of  mechanism  introduced  for  that  purpose 
by  the  anpellants.  The  respondent,  therefore,  could 
not  succeed  in  the  action  unless  he  could  show  that, 
upon  a fair  construction  of  his  specification,  the 
words  “case  or  jacket”  included  not  only  the  enve- 
loping case  already  described,  Imt  the  whole  stage  or 
framework  of  the  upper  table  directly  connected  with 
the  shaft.  If  that  were  what  the  respondent  really 
meant  his  claim  would  hardly  cover  the  appellants’ 
arrangement,  because  in  it  the  I'olling  surface  was 
pot  ill  any  pi'opui'  aeuse,  “ left  free  aa  regarda  ver- 
tical movement  from  the  mechanism  operating  it.” 
But  that  the  respondent  had  no  such  meaning  in  view 
was,  in  their  Jjordshiji’s  opinion,  clearly  apparent 
f.om  the  terms  of  the  specification  taken  in  connexion 
with  the  drawings  to  which  it  referred.  Their  Lord- 
ships  would  therefore  humbly  advise  her  Majesty  to 
reverse  the  judgments  appealed  from,  and  to  dismiss 
the  respondent's  suit  with  costs  iu  both  Courts  below. 
The  respondent  must  bear  the  costs  of  this  appeal. 
LIBERIAN  COFFEE  IN  SEIIDANG— SUMA- 
TRA ; No.  VIII. 
(B}/  an  ex-Ceylon  Planter.) 
There  are  about  1,000  acres  of 
COFFEE 
under  cultivation  in  Upper  Serdaiig,  and  nearly  the 
same  quantity  of  land  is  now  in  course  of  prepa- 
ration for  planting.  There  are  rumours  that  the 
Sultan  himself  has  a mind  to  plant  on  his  owil 
account : but  though  I know  from  his  own  lips  that 
he  is  keenly  interested  in  the  coffee  enterprise,  I 
cannot  say  whether  or  not  he  really  intends  to  turn 
planter.  At  present  I regret  to  say  that  H.  H.  is 
seriously  indisposed.  I am  told  that  he  is  the  most 
progressive  of  all  the  Sultans  on  the  East  Coast,  and 
lends  a willing  ear  to  any  scheme  tending  to  the 
advancement  of  his  territory  and  the  welfare  of  his 
people.  Unfortunately  he  has  recently  dropped  money 
heavily  over  an  irrigation  scheme  for  paddy,  and 
in  the  cultivation  of  ramie;  into  both  of  which  he 
was  urged  to  venture  by  Europeans.  So,  consequently 
and  naturally,  he  is  now  going  ahead  cautiously. 
All  the  land  here  is  low-lying : and  I do  not  think 
there  is  any  coffee  growing  above  300  ft.  elevation.  I 
only  know  of  one  estate  where  shade  is  being  system- 
atically grown.  On  another  estate,  cotton  trees  are 
planted  throughout  part  of  the  coffee ; but,  so  far  as 
shade  is  concerned,  this  is  a farce.  There  is  no  doubt 
in  my  mind  that  shade  is  necessary  to  Liberian 
coffee.  In  c.ase  of  a long  drought  the  land  gets  so 
hard  baked  and  is  so  burning  hot  that  the  coffee 
receives  a severe  check  which  is  mitigated  by  shade 
trees.  The  shade  should  be  planted,  if  possible,  a 
little  before  the  coffee.  I have  .known  cases  where 
men  have  been  too  late  with  their  shade  : and  in 
this  connection  it  should  not  be  lost  sight  of  that 
whereas  you  can  always  remove  your  shade  if  you 
find  it  superfluous,  you  cannot  at  a moment’s 
notice  stick  in  a full-grown  shade  over  3-year  old 
coffee,  should  you  find  your  plantation  being 
baked  alive. 
About 
SHADE 
again,  I have  heard  it  said  that  it  is  too  much  to 
expect  the  soil  to  grow  two  products  at  once.  But 
the  shade  trees  give  back  in  their  droppings  a good 
deal  of  valuable  manure.  We  are  too  apt  to  forget 
that  weeds  and  vegetable  matter  going  back  into  tht 
soil  givG  back  wore  than  they  have  taken  out  of  it. 
For  in  addition  to  restoring  what  they  have  taken 
from  the  Hof,  they  add  what  they  have  absorbed 
from  the  (ihitoijilierc,  no  inconsiderable  item.  “ Of 
tihade.'i  wo  can  offer  a charmin’  variety,”  and  I 
think  the  Father  O'Flynn  of  them  all  is  Dadap, 
( hlrifthrinn  E.  hidira).  Of  this,  two  sorts  are  iu  use, 
Dadap  Solo,  and  Dadap  S'rep,  otherwise  known  as 
Dadap  Juiva  : and  in  .lava  I nave  bouglit  the  latter 
variety  from  a man  at  3cts.  per  stick,  the  same  man 
refusing  to  let  me  have  his  Solo  for  less  than  10  cts. 
per  stick.  For  my  part  I think  it  is  six  o’  one  and 
half  a dozen  o’  t’  other ; nobbut  what  I wouldn’t 
take  Dadap  Solo  it  it  was  going  at  the  same  price 
as  S’rep.  'The  other  shade  trees  are  Alhhzia  sti- 
pnlota,  and  Alb.  molurcana.  Of  these  I have  no 
personal  experience  ; but  I am  told  that  the  former 
is  preferred,  the  latter  being  too  brittle  and  causing 
much  damage  to  the  coffee  by  the  branches  falling 
in  windy  weather.  This  sort  of  accidental  damage 
I believe  to  bo  much  exaggerated.  A tea  story  will 
give  an  example.  I was  walking  with  one  of  my 
S.  Ds,  when  we  came  upon  half  a bush  lying  across 
the  path.  “There’s  50  lb.  off  (hia  year’s  crop,” 
