66o 
THE TROPICM. A-ORTOOLTORIST. 
[March i, 1892. 
“tutjied the drawings, and the model in Court illus- 
trates that machine in every essential particular. 
I consider that the Excelsior has the invention 
specified, the arrangement of transmitting motion to 
tne top rolling surface through the case or jacket 
surrounding it. In no other class of tea machine have I 
seen that invention except in the defendant's 
machine and Law & Davidson's. I do not know 
when the latter was made but I have seen it in 
Ccvlon. No workman with the Standard before him 
could have constructed either the Excelsior or triple- 
action rollers, if ho had not a knowledge of machine 
designing He then described the differences between 
the Standard and the Excelsior in view of the inven- 
tion claimed, and said:-The first and priiicipal 
advantage in the Excelsior over the btandard is the 
method for trausniittinK motion through the jacket 
to the upper rolling surfiMie. boca-uso, in the first place, 
it enables the upper rolling surface to be lifted, and 
also it enables the machine to he filled by tlie at- 
tendant standing in front of tlie iiiacliine instead of, 
in the older uiachine, having to mount to tlio ton of 
the roller. Another advantage duo to this method of 
transmitting motion to tlie top rolling surface is tliat 
the machine can he cleaned easier. Then again it 
dispenses with oiling above the upper rolling surface. 
I consider that another advantage in the Excelsior 
over the Standard is that it is a inucli simpler 
machine to make ; it costs less and docs more work. 
Tlie invention or improved arrangement claimed is, as 
regards tlie Standard, a novel one and is the reverse of 
whatobtains in the Standard. In tlie Standard tlie up- 
uer-rolliug surface is connected dircctlv to tlie driving 
gear of the machine. In the Excelsior tlie jacket 
IS connected directly to the driving gear, carrying 
the upper-rolling surface wltli it. Having regard 
to the specification and drawings and the model of 
the Excelsior before tlie Court, I consider tliat tlie 
case or jacket as specified in the spocitioatioii 
and drawings is as follows First, the outer 
rim Boeondly the lining of the jacket, and 
thirdly the bow or bracket. All those constitute 
the jiicket togetlier with the bolts and screws that 
hold those together. 'I'ho arrangement of transmit- 
ing motion claimed by the plaintiff exists in the 
defendant's machine. Tlie jacket in defendant's 
machine consists in the same way as in the plain- 
tiff's machine of the same three parts, the casing 
(tlie iron framework), the lining of the jacket, and 
the bow or bracket, the wliolo jacket being con- 
nected directly witli the main driving gcar-the 
i mnk— the same as in the plaintiff s machine. The 
horn-plates in my opinion are parts of the jacket 
ie the defendant's machine, serving the purpose of 
cartytag the weight off the jacket an;! tlierehy 
pStfiig friction by scraping or rubbing on tho 
Fowlr rolling s.irtaem The liorn-plates m dofeii- 
danfs raachino are mechanical equivalents to 
the sliding rod in the hearings of the Excelsior. 
More correctly sneaking the horn-plates correspond 
with the rod ill the other machine, atid the hea'rings 
in the plaintiff's machine correspond wiUi the 
hearings in tho defendant's machine. In the 
Excelinor with a full charge of leaf and the top 
rolling surface run up as fur as it can go and tml 
pressure on, it is tho jacket which can'ies the top 
rolling surface. According to tlie specification ; in 
mv opinion Mr. Jackson is certainly not tied down 
to^ making tlie central spindle of any diameter or 
strength- nor is he tied down to making a liglit or 
strong bearing in the how or bracket in which it works. 
Nor 18 ho tied down by tlie specification to making 
tho upper rollinMurface a working fit to the lining of the 
iacket In the Excelsior and triple action rollers tho 
ackets aro driven but they drive what is in thorn. They 
might be considered drivers as well of the caps within 
them. Tho only tiling tliat is really new m tlie 
defendant's niacliine is ttiat the upper rolling surface 
revolves, which it does not m tlie plaintiffs; that 
is to sav that it rovolvos on it own iixis. 
Cross-examined by Mr. Bkownk.-I worked on no 
tea estate in the north of Ireland. (Hmilos. I sup- 
pone that like inysolf when you were in Ireland you 
heard a great deal more of Jackson fftuw than 
Jackaon’B lea roller ? I never heard of one or tho other. 
I began my tea roller experience in the colonies. I 
served an apprenticeship as a jnechnical engineer, 
was for six years with Messrs. Wm. Ewart dc Hons, 
Jlelfast, and then went to Davidson & Co., Belfast, 
luy present eniployera. I went to Davidson about 
iHrtB and I was about four months in their works. 
I came to tho colonies in tho beginning of 1889 — 
first to Ceylon, then to India (where 1 was six or 
eight months), back to Ceylon, then to Java (where 
I was about six weeks) and then back to Ceylon, 
where I am iiow'. Nearly all the time I have 
been working for Messrs. Davidson. When 
not working for them I have been working 
for others, putting up and looking after machin- 
ery. Messrs. Davidson are Hirocco manufacturers. 
1 do uot consider the Commercial Company as rivals 
of my employers as regards Siroccos. At the re- 
cent Exhibition the Commercial Company exhibited 
a machine which they called a dessicator. I do 
not think that Company import desiccators. I tliink 
they are manubuitured locally. As far as I know 
they sell them. They are in the same line of busi- 
ness as my employers. 1 have studied mechanics as 
a Bcionco in schools in Holfast for three or four 
years, and I am still studying. I have seen defon- 
dants' roller on Mr. Dobree's Dikoya estate. X 
have also seen it woiking without a belt on Ardlaw 
tea estate. I have also seen it on Waltrini and 
Mayfiower estates. I cannot remember any more. 
I do not know anything about Law A Davidson’s 
machine. Mr. Jackson does uot claim any special 
moans for the object he had in view. The 
transmitting of motion through the case or jacket 
may be obtained in different ways. Mr. J ackson's object 
us tar as I understand is to give the upijer rolling sur- 
face tho same ruction as is received by tho case or 
jacket Burrouuding it, at the same time allowing the 
upper rolling free vortical movement. In theHtaudard 
the jacket of the upper rolling surface moved in tho 
same direction with great disadvantages. One of the 
differences between the Btandard and the Excelsior is that 
in the latter the upper rolling surface has free vortical 
motion which it had not in tho Standard. The other dif- 
ferences are those I have already particularised. The 
sole or only object of Mr. Jackson was not to obtain 
free vertical motiou in the upper rolling surface. 
That is not in tho fore-front of his claim, but follows 
the trausmisBion of motion Ac., I cannot say 
what his principal object was. llis claim I 
suppose is ii particular meaus and a particular 
object. Tlie moans is the method of transmitting 
the motion and one of the objects obtained 
i.s tlie release of tho upper-rolling table. Jackson 
in my opinion docs not claim to patent free vertical 
movement to the upper rolling surface, but it is a 
natiu’jil consequence of the first part of his claim. 
(Mr. Withers interposed an objection to tho effect 
that this was trenching on a matter of law. It was 
for the judge to decide what the invention was). I 
suppose that the clause “ whereliy, Ac.” was added to 
make the claim more distinct and simpler. The relation 
between the two machines as regards looseness (in 
the jacket and upper-rolling surface) is different. 
In the Standard the case or jacket is driven by the 
four sides of the upper rolling surface wliou tho 
machine is working. In the Excelsior tho upper 
rolling surface is driven by the jacket and is in- 
directly connected to it. Is the jacket of the Btandard 
driven by all four sides of the upper rolling surface 
at one and the sametimeV It would he hard to 
say how it is driven during any one second or 
instant when it is working. When pressure is on 
tho leaf may roll it on all four sides. In practice 
with leaf I could not toll you wliich side touched it 
instantaneously ; tlie bottom table might push the 
iacket to any side. 1 cannot remember tho space 
oetween tho jacket and upper rolling surface iu 
the Btandard. In Jackson’s the space is about the 
sixteenth of an inch to allow the upper rolling sur- 
face to work up and down— what you may call a 
working tit. In the Btandard the jacket was always 
loose. In the Excelsior tho upper rolling surface is 
loose to a certain extent but uot in In® 
same way as in tlie other. In the Excelsior the 
upper rolling surface though loose in tho jacket is 
