498 
THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST, 
[January i, 1892. 
the Btill BUOoeBefully cuUivated trees vere put in 7 
The report furniebeB ue with no data b; which 
Buoh hypotheses as these could be replied to. It 
is, however, very certain that there yet remain to 
UB Helds ol coflee which, at the present high 
rate obtainable tor the berry at home, are very 
remunerative. And yet, in the (aoe of this faot, 
the directors ot the Lanka Company announce 
that “each year the acreage becomes unavoid- 
ably smaller.” It is a pleasing feature of the 
report that it informs us of a suflioiently proiitablo 
result to the year’s working to enable substantial 
dividends to be declared. Even with an unfavour- 
able rate of exchange during the first half of the 
year, the profits made reached ±16,443 28. 6d. From 
this the direotors have decided to pay 6 per cent 
on the preference shares, and, but for precaution- 
ary reasons, they might have declared 4 per cent on 
the ordinary shares. VVe are not saying that these 
are high rates of dividend, but they at least show 
a very marked advance as compared with many 
past years. Reverting to the matter of produce on 
the Company’s estates, it is to bo observed that 
oinehona is still regarded as almost a hopeless 
production, and so we must consider it to be until 
“time brings about its revenges.” On the other 
band, cacao appears to have given such good results 
that the directors are anxious for more capital to 
developo its cultivation, and the Company appears 
to have been fortunate in discovering upon its 
properties sites well-suited to its somewhat eapri- 
oiouB taste. We note that 341 acres planted with 
cacao returned last year a profit not far short of 
£3,000. This seems good enough to tempt further 
extension, and will doubtless set eomo of our 
planters on a further look-out for such localities 
of soil &o. on their estates that might prove suitable 
for experimenting. Wo notice that the average 
prioe obtained for the Company’s ten throughout 
last year was 94 per lb. not. 
CONSUMPTION OP CEYLON TEA JN IIRITIAN 
AND HER C OLONIES AND IN FOREIGN 
COUNTRIES. 
By an unaccountable oversight, we yesterday, 
in dealing with the comparative consumption of 
Ceylon teas in Britain and her colonies and in 
Foreign countries, omitted to inelude Australia in 
the former category while the figures against it 
went into the latter. The result was to give a far 
too favourable idea of the extent to which, with all 
our eflorts, we have been able to open markets for 
our teas other than those of Hritain and her colo- 
nies. The real figures are such as will still more 
enforce the necessity and the duty of relaxing 
no eflorts to open foreign markets, oapeoinlly those 
of the American continent hy moans of (he 
Chicago Exhibition. Supposing Ceylon produces, 
aa we estimated, 664 millions of pounds of tea in 
1891, we may, perhaps, strike off the odd half 
million for local consumption. The disposal of 
thereat will then be: — Ib. 
Taken by Great Britain, say 60,000,000 
„ British Colonies, ,, 4,500,000 
„ Foreign countries (o«fy) 1,500,000 
So that, allowing for portions of the exports to 
India and China (Hongkong) going ultimately to 
foreign oountries. the proportion of our crop of 654 
millions (with the prospect of considerable increase 
for half a dozen years to come) taken by 
foreign eountrios is oonaiderably less than 
two millions of pounds I We confess to being 
personally taken by surprise by such a result 
as this. Our planters and their agents have 
made no impression worth mention on Russia 
and as yet there is nothing very hope- 
ful in regard to the other great tea-oonsuming 
country, the United States. This is not a time for 
holding back on any pretext, but for a long pull and 
a strong pull and a pull altogether in favour of the 
introduction of our teas into foreign countries, espeoi- 
ally the United States, Russia, Germany and France. 
THE TEA ROLLER PATENT CASE. 
Tlio o»«o for iofringemont of pateot at the 
initaoce of Mr. Wm. Jackson against Mr. A. Brown 
and (he Oomracroial Company came before Mr. Morgan 
in the District Court of Colombo yesterday afternoon. 
Mr. WiTHF.BS for the plaintiff wished to know 
wbclher any legal objections were going to bo 
pressed; and being told by Mr. Browne that there 
were bo said thoy ehonld be stated so that ho might 
be able to meet them. 
Mr. Browne for thri defendants said it would he a good 
tiling if they could got the issues Inlaw and fact laid down 
In the first place. He suggested that membets of the 
bar might make it a point of praoltoe amongst them- 
selves that plaiiUiff’H counsel should draft the issues 
and submit them to defendant's conneol say a week 
before iho trial came on. If they were accep ed wol 
and good, but if the parties disagreed then ih Court 
would have to scttlo them ou the day of the i rial. 
The JUDOKsaid it would be a very convenient way 
of doing business. 
Mr. WiiuEus wished to kuow the legal issucf. 
The only oue, os ho understood, was that remedy by 
tills aolion was barred, booause the plaintiff bad not 
taken a statutable remedy. 
The JoDOE said tlieie appeared to bo two matters 
of law. It was stated that the plaintiff had not 
stated the invention in respect of which exoiusire 
privilege was granted to him. and srcondly it was 
stall d that the plaintiff should have recourse to cerlaiu 
prooodure. 
Mr. W iTiiBRs remarked that the defendants in their 
answer did not say that the maoliino referred to was 
tbo one of which tl e plnimiff complained. 
The .Tddge thi’Ugbt that was the inference from 
the whole of the answer. 
Mr. Bkownf. said the argnment on that part had 
bettor he postponed (ill it was shown, so far aa the 
plaintiff’s ease had gone, that it was the triple action 
tea roller which was the machine that be complained 
the defeiidanla had imported and sold in Cajlon. 
If he said that it was, which the pleadings did not 
as yet disolose, it might be time for them to say 
“ Oh ! wO have taken a patent for that.” It was 
a matter that would arise out of the state of facts 
that might be proved, 
Mr. Withers thought that had better be assumed 
for the sake of argument. 
The JuDOB was nndorstood to say that bethought 
there oould be no doubt that it was the triple aotion 
machine that was referred to. 
Mr. Browns said the plaintiff in the fenetb paragraph 
of his libel did not say that the machine wbiob the de- 
fendants bad iinpurlod wan the triple aetion roller, lie 
only said they had infringed the plaintiff's patent 
right by importing into and seHiog in Ceylon machi- 
nery and apparatus for rolling tea posaessiiig the 
arrang^ent described in the apooification ol the 
plaintiffa patent. The second obyeotiim was a special 
defonoe in law which might arise hereafter according 
to the facta, bat he intended to press the objection 
that the plaintiff bad not diso'osed any cause of action 
against them. The plaintiff bad not alleged what 
was the invention in respect of which exclusive 
privilege was granted to him. The whole machine 
was desoribed in the apsaificalinn. Had the defen* 
ilauts infringed the whole of it f Three things wAro 
fliUKled out nfterwird?, but the pitintiff did not 
phiticuIftriBo what was the invoiitlou infrioKed. He 
did not gRy that it was tho arrangemeut ior trans- 
mittingmotion lo the top rollingfurfaoo throughthe case 
or jacket BurtouudiDg it, Mr. lirowuo then proceeded 
