March i, 1892.] 
THE TROPICAL AQRIOULTUR 19 T. 
663 
tlie Cmirt and extracting information in tliat respect 
from the different witnesses. One got very rusty 
over mechanics — almost as rusty as mocdianisra 
itself got in this tropical climate. He had had one 
mechanical case in 18 m,’) in that the Conrt and another 
— he thought it was a year or two ago— in the District 
Court of Kandy, and beyond that he did not know what 
uestions of nieohanisn) had arisen in either Court 
uring the last 20 years. They were at a CTeater 
disadvantage here than specialist counsel in Dondon 
wore to whom anch cases wore a matter of every, 
day occurrence. However, they had to do their host; 
and for his own part, in his oranch of the case ho 
had to acknowledge his very great indebtedness to 
his client who sat on his right (young; IMr. Brown) 
whom he might call his mechiinical junior for all his 
assistance, in the case. lie conld not have played 
any part at all if it had not been for his 
help. In this matter it was hard to know 
where to begin. His Honour had been at the 
trouble for the last four or live days of taking down 
a mass of evidence that ho thought had mu to 
over llki pages of writing, and now it was his 
duty to e.xplain to llis Honour wliat the defen- 
dant's theories were — they were very simple — in 
regard to the wliole of this case, and to apply the 
evidence to the whole case and to apply the 
evidonco to them. First let them got as true an 
idea as possible of each inventor's work, and ho 
thought the result of such an enquiry would be 
to establish that the two machines woro as 
diametrically opposed to each other in every 
principle and action as they possibly could he 
— BO opposed that it was almost impossible to 
think that there could be any similarity, and 
pertainiy such a similarity as to amount to an 
'ofringonicnt. Mr. Jackson had given a history of 
'■ow he arrived at what ho called the invention 
tlio Excelsior. He had told them that after a 
training as a moclianical engineer — he (Mr. Browne) 
took tliat to be that ho was more of a practical than 
a scientific engineer— ho proceeded to Assam. Like 
Mr. Lamont ho Boomed to have studied his art in 
manufactories at home, which, though they had a 
great deal to do as marine euginoers with the roll- 
ing sea, had nothing to do with rolling tea. After 
that experience he came out to India and began life 
there apparently as a tea planter. Then he efirocted 
his attention to tea machinery. He told them that 
tliere were already rollers in existence, and as far as 
ho (Mr. Browne) could see by what Mr. Jackson had 
told thorn and by passages in the report of one caso 
to which he, as Mr. Jackson mentioned, was an 
unwilling party, most of the principles of the Standard 
machine were in existence before he took out his 
license. The patent for the Standard was taken out 
in India, and Mr. Jackson came here as an expert, 
'nid in direct examination told Mr. 'Withers “I in- 
yonted the Standard, I took the patent in India for 
He posed before the (lourt in all the glory of 
ifn original inventor, and if his evidence stood un- 
‘’ontradicted without cross-examination the Court 
"'onhl look up to him indubitably as an anthority of 
Weight in the matter. The prod notion of the Calcutta 
Law Keports and his own admisBionB|thore woro, how- 
ever, quite sutlicieut to overthrow that status to which 
he had raised himself in his direct examination. 
I he one word “Kinmond” on tho defendant's model 
showed him perfectly well that tliey knew tho fallacy 
wliat ho (Mr. Browne) might call presumptive 
his direct examination, 
nr. Jackson admitted that that very machine was 
nvoivod in the patent caso in Calcutta; he admitted 
unit tho principle of that machine was one not of 
187.’) or of 1871 hut was one of the year 188,’) when 
Ainmond first brought out his idea, aithough his upper 
rolling surface was smaller than this one. Mr. 
'll" *’ *^rowii would toll tho Court that he saw 
t lat niachine of Kinmond's or some machine on 
ciiat idea which he surmised to be the name 
as the patent in laB.*) or 1888; so that to 
mill it was very clear tliat there was no warranty 
lor Jackson posing as the inventor of tho Standard, 
^ounsel then proceeded to quote tho remarks of tho 
judges in the case pf Kinmond r. .I^ickson (Calcutta 
Law Reports page 73) with regard to Kinmond’s 
second specification, to the effect that the two ini- 
ortant alterations in his original niachine which were 
escribed in tlie second specification wore the central 
cavities or rocesses and the motion given to tho 
under table as well as the upper, and, that to give 
iiiotjoii to tho under as well as the upper plate was 
no doubt an improvement, and had the specification 
been limited to that it might have been good, bnt 
the specification being for the whole oombinatioii 
and not for the movement only it comes under ex- 
clusive privileges. This Mr. Browne looked npon as 
indicating that even in 1877, in tho ago of tho 
Standard and when tho Excelsior was stitl a thing 
of the future, both under and nppor tables in tea 
rollers had been given independent motion of each 
other. Next he referred to Jackson's iinprovemoiits 
on Kinmond's machine, and said thw consisted of 
three things. The machine was fed differently, the 
loaf was discharged differently, and there woro springs 
underneath to minimize tho vibration, Mr. Browne 
supposed, or to make the pressnre more automatical. 
That was the invention ; it was nothing more at 
tho best than an improvement in three details, and 
Mr. Jackson, whatever credit he was entitled to as an 
improver, conld not take up the high stand of 
gciiins of tlm absolute original inventor. 'With so 
iiiiioh credit attaching to him and no more— he was 
disooniitiiig of course Mr. Jackson's valno as an 
export witness and lie was afraid— afraid for his sake 
— -it would be found that by his evidence Mr. Jackson 
had discounted himself a great deal more in this case— 
the first, Loolecondcra Standard, came out to Coylon 
and was not patented. Henceforth in Ceylon every in- 
ventor or improver was perfectly at liberty to use 
any part, or any principle he might say, of the 
Standard machine in his invention. The Standard 
was never patented in Coylon. 
Mr. WiTHEns. — Wo admit it was public property; 
common property. 
Mr. BnowNE continuing said that was very im- 
portant as regarded one thing. In tho Loolecondera 
tlie nppor rolling plate was driven direct from the 
driving mechanism ; and what did Jackson do ? 
Jackson said tliis was a cumbrous machine, he could 
not get at it to feed it properly, and therefore he 
said he must devise something else, and wont to 
work to product) a different machine. That was one 
of tho roasoHB tliat influenced him. Another was 
the lieavy weight of the loose jacket on tho under 
taiilc when it was moving backwards and forwards 
tearing it all to pieces. Ho wanted to design some- 
thing; lighter, simpler, and cheaper, and accordingly 
he wont to design tlie Excelsior roller. Ho was 
afraid tliat tho very designing of tho Excelsior roller 
discounted Mr. Jackson's genius a little more. It 
was, ho ventured to say, a very cumbrous way of 
arriving nt a result. As they knew from Goodeve'a 
Manual of Machines, circular motion was of a com- 
pound character and capable of resolution into its 
elemonts. Circular motion was prodneod by two forces 
which acted as he illustrated by the movomont of 
his hands, transversely. Mr. Jackson got the two 
forces acting as Counsel had illustrated— a rectilinear 
force at right angles — -and thus, in a quotient to tho tea 
roll, got circular motion. His mseliine was of recti- 
linear action throughont. By putting a pencil on it at 
any part, and using a sheet of psper to record tho mo- 
tion of the pencil, it would lie found that tho pencil made 
only straight line. It was a very ingonious idea of his 
learned friend to anggost to Mr. Jackson that if ho 
attached a piece of paper to tho lower rolling amJaco 
and put a pencil down a circle would bo marked when 
the two surfaces moved together, and tho same thing 
being done on the other machine it did tho sanio, ergo 
the two were the same. 
Mr. WiTiiEiis was understood to disclaim the credit 
of that and to say that it was his client who told him. 
Mr. Bkowne continuing said it was a very clever 
snggestion for Mr. Jackson to make to his counsel to put 
to him, lint it was not presenting the case to the Court 
in a proper way. It was leading tho Court aside from 
the true construction of the two machines. What Mr. 
Jackson admitted to him in cross-examination was 
that if each of tlio two parts recorded its motion 
