666 
rHF TftOPICAL AGRICULTURIST 
[March i, 1892, 
surface. Was tliat tho way in which the upper 
surface in the defendant’s machine was knocked 
about from side to sido in the borizontai plane? 
Manifestly not; there was no impact on it nil. That 
was the gist of tho whole matter. The description 
of the metal round the wood was as great a mis- 
description as Mr. JbcUpoq lumself made in the very 
opening of hiBspooiheation. Mr. Juckaon exensed l ira* 
self for the patent action in Calcutta on the ground 
tliat Kinmond end he were novices in drawnig out 
patent specifications, and oousequoutly they fell foul 
ot each other. Mr. Jackson apparently was as great 
a novice in drawing out a specification uS regards 
the Excelsior as he was at Calcutta He aaiil : “ In car- 
rying out roy invention I employed a zig zag crank shaft 
having three crank pine on it- This fhaft I place in 
a vertical position and connect the upper crank pin 
to the upper rolling surface by moans of a suitable 
bearing, and in a similar way 1 connect the immediate 
crank pin to the lower rolling surface, and tho lower 
crank pin to a wheel or disc turning in a fixed centre.” 
Now in direct examination— there might be no record 
of the expression because it was so hurriedly or en 
uttered— Mr. JackaoQ, bolding his hands fora 
momont over the machine, said ** in fact this is all 
the upper rolling surl'aco ” — treating not only “ A ” 
but whst he called his jocket as the upper rolliug 
surface too. That wag what he meant in the beginning 
of bia spRcificatioD because the hosring was not 
oODUfclod with this in any way. “K” had only au 
attachment to this like the athicbmeut of Pyr&mua 
to Thisbe, through the hole in the wall ; but it 
was not an actual attachment; it was only a 
sontimcntal, a quasi— *(Mr. Dorniiobst:— A Platonic)— 
or Jackson attachment. Hie description was sin- 
gularly unfortunate in that respect unless they re- 
garded all as the upper rolling surface. One of his 
first questions to Mr. Jackson was— what is the 
upper rolling surface? — is it A? to which bo an- 
swered job, because he (Mr Browne knew that when 
they came to road that with tho admissioa Jackson 
would bo Don-pluBsed when he (Mr. Bi’uwne) said 
whore is the attachment of “A” by a suitable benr- 
ing, when the question was put there was one of the 
usual lengthy answers. Mr- Withers in his openltijg 
address used words to the effect that the die-simili- 
tude of machines might not prevent one being an 
infringement of tho patent ot the other. In a similar 
way ho (Mr. Browne) might sav that the similitude 
of machines might not result in one being an in- 
fringement of the patent of tho other. For his 
machine however he claimed that it was wholly dis- 
similar to Jackson’s in every respect. The witneesGs 
bad tried to prove various points of sin3ilarily, but by 
his comparison of the models he couiended that they 
were quite dissimilar- When they said that tho whole 
thing was the case or jacket th* y were really describing 
the connecting rod and tho jacket, and it was clear that 
Jackron’s beatings were not the same as the horn- 
plates of the defendant. Really Messrs. Brown and 
Hutson had proved the defoudauts’ c.<ao in provirg that 
the frame wns a connecting rod. Of the inveu’or of tlie 
triple action roller he thought it would bo anfficient 
to say that he bad been, be thought, since 1848 
in the colony ; at least he began bis work out hero in 
1848 on the hills of Uvh, and prac ic dly he was 
directing his attr-utlon to Sirnccoft— he dared say Mr. 
MaGuire might faint if he were* in Court— and o her 
drying machinory at a time when he supposed, to 
borrow a phiaso from Mark Twain’s toru-t of “ the 
Babit 8,” Mr. Jacksou had no other thought engaging 
bis mind as to the transmission of motion and Die 
puiLOso to be subserved thereby than how to gotjh.s 
big toe into his mouth to suck it as lie lav m Ins 
cradle. Mr. Brown who was a C. E. saw the grand 
lather of Jacksons mhcbino in 1805 in London— if the 
Standard was tho parent the original idea of the 
Standard miiat be the grandfather of Mr. Jackson s 
machine— and settiug to work as a mechanical en- 
gineer ho soberly devised a machine which he said 
in no respect infringed Jackson’s. He had ufuized 
nothing except what was common propetry to all in- 
vtmtors, ospscmlly Oeyloo inventors— the driving of the 
upper surface by a crank taken from the driving mec- 
hanism. Becau«e be saw it was uf'eful he had re- 
tained what Jack.Hon h'ld discarded because he thought 
it was usoh'Bs. The design was in his mind tor 
months, — (Mr. Brom'N: — Y ears) for years; and in the 
end the idea struck him to gear at the train of 
mechanism a stage higher, put a pulley on it and 
a corre»*pon<ling puilev on the central vertical shatr, 
and the thing was done. With bU experience ho 
did not start rashly in life wth an action against 
Kinmond and then practically buy Kiumond's shoes to 
walk about the world in as au inventor, us the plaintdf 
did. Ho started absolutely with his own inveulivc 
faculties and iuveted a machine which he aaid was 
original and in no way infringed Jackson’s because it 
did uot impart motion to tbe app> r rolling surface 
through the case ur jacket. He believed he would 
have the advantage of calling as wiioeHses two gentle- 
men who were thoroughly scientific mechanics. One 
of them in bis early career passed, he believed, first 
out of Woolwich, and the other though ho was tho 
younger won what m’ght be called the blue 
ribbon of acieoco at Woolwich iu the shape of 
the Whitworth scholarnhip. Th<»«6 two witnesaea 
were not merely men of haoimer, file and vice, 
but men wh > had really studied ratchnuicd thoroughly, 
and if nreesaary Keml's bkrine and others might 
he called who he thought would bear out Mr. Brown’s 
contention in this ca»‘e. Tho first defeudaut in the 
case, Mr. Alfred Brown, was at present entitled to 
a Tcrdiot because nothing had been proved against 
him. So far hs ho could see the goutleman bad need- 
lessly bi'on made a defen^'ant in the case. It was 
said that he had patented a machine out here and 
issued a license to tbe second defendant, to make or 
use or sell maebim s, but he did not know tbnt tbe 
issuing of that license onusfitnted niiy cause ot Motion. 
They had not proved that he had imported or sold a 
single mnchiiiC. nod on boing cnlh d he would state that 
ho had douc neither of those things. Ct'unsei was 
ready to admit- that Mr. A. Brown had issued 
license as panfentee in C. yl< n to others to use the 
machine, but t' at was lot alleged *»s a c use of 
action against him, nor if it were allo.god won d it 
make a cause ot action agair st bin. ‘lutlie conclu- 
ding part of his address Mr. Br«iwne rcf6rred to a 
qiiostiun of law arising outot Mr. Jackson’s affirmative 
reply t”) tho question that he bad applied for an 
arrongcmfiifc new at the Mra<’ of converting circu ar 
into reciprocating motion. W* 11, the di feudarit'e machine 
did not convert circular in’o reciprocating motion, 
and tberetore there no infriugmeni in that matter. 
Further if Mr. Jackt-on had patented a paiiicular 
means or method of arriving at a r« salt he only pattiitHd 
tliat means, and it was open to the def* ndant to 
attain tlie result in any other way he liked. 
Mr. Buownr concluded his address at 3-15, having 
apoken for throe houri'. 
Mr. D 0 RNHOR.ST followed on the legal asjie^t of the 
case. According to Edmond’s work on patents page, 217, 
“an infringement is an act which comes within the terms 
01 ihd prohibition in the pat* ut,” and a pstfut was a 
monopoly granted and contaies a pr*'hibitory clause.” 
In order to find out what Mr. Jackson claimed as his 
peculiar monopoly they )i-vl to look at bis statement of 
c'aim, and there it appuari d that he claimod to nave 
dP'Covered a nicnns of transmittiog mo’ion to the upper 
rolling surface. Ho must stand ur iall by that claim 
and prove that (bo (lefeudantg in their machine 
trsnsmbted motion in the same way, which 
ho had entirely failed to do, for Mr. Browne 
had shown that in the triple action tlia 
motion was trausmitUd to the upper rolling surface 
tbrongh the g*^aring above, and it did not matter 
whether that id<'a was borrowed from tho Standard or 
U('t, an that was common property. As had often been 
said by Judges of eniim-nce, if tbe more fact that 
curtain parts of one machine leaemblen certain parts 
of the alleged infringing maebiue were to be grounds 
for regarding the attached mnohine as an infringe' 
meut of tho other, invention would stop; there would 
be DO more improvement in anything. It was necessary 
in the order of things that there must be certain 
