March i, 1892.] 
THE TROPlCItt. AORIdM-TUmST. 
665 
light for the planter’s purse as well. On 
a coi^arifton of the weight of the Standard 
and Excelsior it would be found that there 
was practicallv no difference, and what he 
said was that Jackson got his lightness of weight 
in the woodwork, only he made his connecting rod 
of such strength— he supposed Mr. Jackson thought 
it was necessary— that the whole aggregated up to 
the weight of the Standard. The great difference 
between the Standard and the Excelsior was that 
Jackson took the driving crank off the upper rolling 
surface which l\e left free to vertical motion by its 
own gravity, and getting rid of the top part 'that 
was controlling it put it on to the jacket. Instead 
of moving the jacket about by the upper rolling 
surface as in the Standard ho did the contrary, 
tlie advantage that he thereby gained being that 
ho got motion applied directly in the nlaiie where- 
over it might be at the time whetner high up 
or low down. What the defendants said was 
Jackson's object in this patent was to release 
the upper rolling surface and leave it to 
descend automatically within the case or jacket Hur- 
rounding at so that he might apply weight to it and 
use it with much more convenience. The other 
results following upon that were as Mr. Jackson had 
stated. Mr. Jackson denied that thH was the pith 
and marrow of his invention, but the proof that it 
was his object was in his own claim of novelty. 
•* I claim for my novelty the transmission of motion 
to the upper rolling surface through the case or 
jacket surrounding it, whereby tho upper rolling 
surface is left free as regards vertical movement 
from the mechanism operating it." If it was for 
ventilation, for inspection of the leaf, or for any 
other of these five or six general purposes that this 
invention was designed, thongbt out, matured and 
put into practice, why wore not all those purposes 
®peciiied in the claim of novelty instead of only the 
one which was put in the fore-front of hia claim, 
and the one with which they had mainly to deal, 
nanmly “whereby Ax."? Jackson foresaw that there 
was all this difficulty before him, and in his plaint 
he lutd left out the words “w'horeby” *&c. He read 
Jackson s claim, and he asked tho Court to read it 
us a claim for tho release of the top rolling 
surface into automatic action and the transmitting of 
motion to it when in that state ; but ho had left out 
the words “whereby" Ac. in hia plaint because ho saw 
that not for a single moment was the defendant’s 
machine automatic, being controlled* in every part. 
The defendant’s never contemplated free action; they 
never sot rid of the top gear as Jackon did; nay 
more tliey retained tho driving of their top rolling 
surface from tho driving mechanism of tlioirmachinc, 
^and they wore free to do that as the Standard 
had never been patented — and it never touched 
the surrounding part. Jackson’s upper rolling surface 
was made with a margin of a sixteenth of an inch all 
round, but in actual motion that sixteenth of an inch 
Was not always preserved and this surface got its 
horizontal motion by the impact of the case upon it. 
One of tho witnesses stated that when one of Jock- 
sou’s machines got a littlo worn he had actually heard 
^he knock as the thing rattled in the box. In tho 
other machine there was in actual working an inten al 
of two inches between the rolling surface and 
fhe jacket, and that space was invariably pre- 
served. When Mr. J^rown came to look at 
Hils machine of Jnokson's ho saw all its defects and 
saw how a much belter machine could ho constructed 
on entirely different principlos. Jackson said there 
was want of ventilation. Wiy, Jackson had been 
copying from lirown’s since he came to the island 
this time by cutting off pieces and leaving only the 
corners which were necessary for his impact. What 
no called his upper rolling sm-faco might to a certain 
extent help the roiling of the tea, but it was not 
the true principle of rolling. It was really an upper 
weighting sur face on the lower rolling surface, but inso- 
car as the tea was rolled between them it might by 
tourtesy be called tho upper rolling surface. Evi- 
aenco could actually be called to show that unless 
It were raised from time to time to relieve tho 
lea, the tea would what they called “ ball " under- 
neath and “ ball ’’ to such an extent that not only 
would this particular part not work but put such a 
strain on as that it might, as in the case of 
Bogawautalawa he thought, actually stop the 
turbine. Mr. Browm saw that much hotter could be 
done and studied, in all fairness to Jackson 
and in all due protecion of his own interest, 
bow he could do it without infriuging Jackson’s in 
the sligbest. Jackson, bo saw, gave motion to bis 
npper surface by impaot of ibe jacket, but that 
surface had that this defect, that it did not 
assist in the rolling beyond being a weight. Jackson’s, 
he said; was a single action roller, and be set to 
make the triple action machine with the one table 
going round or waltzing round the other and the 
chain of mechanism built up so that motion was 
imparted to the upper surface by the indie direct 
from the mechanism of the maohine. Jackson's 
jacket he said was part of the driving mechanism ; 
it was a connecting rod with the case for the tea 
sunk in it ; and the defendant instead of using tho 
cat^e for holding the tea leaf, to impart motion to the 
upper roiling surface, took the motion direct from 
tho rreebnnism which he had a perfect right to do, 
and discarding motion by impaot kept bis npper rolling 
surface two inches away from the case. He bore 
his jacket in the connecting rod and Jackson 
had not taken oat a patent for that. The more they 
locked into these machines the more they saw their 
diversity from each other — diversity in oonstructioo, 
diversity in design, diversity in action, and diversity 
even in original principle; and, taking as an illos- 
tra ion the working of an ordinary pnmp handle in 
corop'trigou with the working of a circular handle for 
the purpose of showing that by its continuous action 
• he latter avoided the loss of power that there 
was in the former, he appealed to the Court whether 
ho was wrong in describing Jackson’s maebines as 
cumbrous by going back to the original principle 
of iC(<olviDg circular motion to attain it again instead 
of beginning with circular motion and conrerving it or 
rather multiplyiog circular motion. The two maehinea 
ho contented were wholly diverso, every motion of 
the one being roctiUinear and every motion of the 
other circular, or, os the other side called it rotatory 
and eccoutrio. What Jackson had patented was the 
tr'kDRmiKsion of motion, and that motion was ob- 
tained by impaot, while in the defendant’s machine 
there was no motion by impaot, tho driving 
mechanism being continued right up the whole 
machine and down throngU tho spindle into the 
npper rolling surface. Of course the coutoution 
on the other sidn was that the whole thing was 
the jacket ibnJ that therefore motion wss transmitted 
to the surface per tlie epiiidlc, per the jacket. His 
contention, however, was that what the plaintiff 
calU d thti jacket was two things ; it was the oon- 
nt'Cting ro'i— part of the driving meohaDism — and the 
wooden lining was the true 3acket, The mere part 
which was w.xdtu in Jackson’s mndel was the only 
part that really rest mbled the jacket of Kinmond’a 
mtchine ; and what he had done was to put that 
down in the middle of bis connecting rod and place 
a bracket Hcroas it simply for grinding purposes. 
Where JackhOn was wrong and misleading was in 
describing the attachment of the jacket. The at- 
tachment of the jacket to the driving meohnnism 
was by the bolts which passed through the slot holes 
by whi'b, when the jacket was originally made and 
put in. it WBs fitted. Some of tho witneseos said 
that the motion of the metal work was th« motion 
of the crank pin, but that was not so, for the crank 
pin had not only a motion backwanls and forwards 
when suppressed by tbo connecting rod, but it had 
a circular motion also on its own axis which circular 
motion wss not imparted to tbo connecting rod on 
the top of it. Jackson wanted to make out that the top 
surface uot its motion from (he crank pin through the 
metal frutne, lie treated it as sonietbing like P} ramus 
giving Tbinbe a kiss through tho wall. That was 
not so. He used the word there more as if it were 
through the strata of the upper rolling surface. In 
other words the jacket directly moved the upper 
rolling surface when the lining bit the upper rolUDg 
