67° 
THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 
March i, 1892. 
filed with the Indian sjaeoiflcation now produced by Mr. 
Withers was printed in Aberdeen. Had the other 
side a certified copy of what was filed in India '! 
WiTNKaB; — I always understood that both plans 
and specifications were the same. How this comes 
to bo printed this way in the Indian specification is 
a very strange thing. There has been foul work 
going on here. 
Proceeding, witness said ; — I don’t know if this is a 
correct plan but this seems to me to correspond 
with the plan that I believe to be deposited in 
Ceylon, (klodel of the Rapid Roller produced.) 
This maohine embodies the principle of the Excelsior 
in a way. Tfiio upper rolling surface is driven in 
the same way. 
Mr, Withers was proceeding to quote from Mr. 
Brown's alleged Indian specification when 
The Court asked what Mr. AVithers was reading 
from ? 
Mr. Dodwepu Bhowne Jolly & Sons’ pamphlet, 
sir. It is a pamphlet printed by Jolly A Sons of 
Aberdeen. 
Mr. Withers, holding up a MSS. copy. We have 
here a more formal copy. 
Mr. Browne: — Is that a certificate copy of the 
Indian specification'/ 
Mr. Withers : — Yes, it comes from the Indian 
Patent OfiSce. 
Mr. Browne : — Is it a certified copy V 
Mr. Withers:— It accords with the law of Indian 
evidence. 
Mr. Browne :— Is it a certified copy 
Mr. Withers: — It does not purport to be. 
Mr. Browne:— Then it is no better than Jolly’s 
pamphlet. 
‘ Mr. Withers ito Witness): — Is that a correct descrip- 
tion of yonr Indian specification? 
Witness: — It may bo or it may not be. The por- 
tions of the specifications now road must refer to the 
Standard or to the Excelsior,— not to the Rapid. I 
have seen Mr. Juckson’s agent, Mr. Dalgarno, but 
never simke to him. I once saw him riding down 
the road near Boarwell. I never bad a conversation 
with him about tea rollers— never in my life. I saw 
him and was told who ho was when 1 asked but, I 
never spoke to him. 
Mr. Withers said bo had no more questions 
to ask, and the witness was then re-examined 
by Mr. Browne and said : As regards the relation 
of the jacket and the top rolling surface to each 
other the Rapid is the same as the Excelsior. 
Whether the interval between the edge of my upper 
roiling surface and the lining is two inches or only 
the sixteenth of an inch there is never contact 
there is always an open space all round. I did not 
sign the specification in Calcutta, 1 reineiiiber now 
I appointed an attorney there. I don t know by 
whom it was signed. Tne plan produced by 
Mr. Withers is a working drawing specifying the 
measuromeuts from the ofiice of Messrs. J as. Abernethy, 
engineers, Aberdeon. Q . — It is to erect tlie machine’/ 
— My private property. Q , — Never mind that : wiio 
makes your machines for you ? A. — The Agents named 
in this drawing, James Abornetliy & Co., Alierdeen. (/, — 
And did you over authorise them to issue such a drawing 
asthis? A.— Never. 
The next witness called for the defence was Mr. 
Harcouut Shrine, who said- 1 am the owner of 
Osborne Estate, Dikaya. I have been planting since 
1882. I know Jackson’s Excelsior machine, but had 
never used it. I liave used a No. 2 linpid and also 
plaintiff's Little Giant Roller. I worked the latter 
almut 2i years and the Rapid for 111 months. In 
those machines the upper rolling surface was 
pushed by the inside of tlie lining and so got its 
motion. I bought a Triple Action HoUer in 1H8S), 
in London, and it was put up here in January IHHlJ. 
In the Triple Action there is now an inch and three 
quarters space between the lid and the liox. When 
I had the Triple Action Roller first it would take 
as a fair charge about ‘22.'i lb. of withered leaf. 
Now, it takes about 270 11). Tlio maximum quantity 
the liapid would take was 150 lb. and the Little 
Giant about 50 lb. The power necessary for the 
Triple AeUou ReUvr vvus about the same as for the 
Rapid. Witness also gave evidence on one or two 
points concerning the mechanism of the Rapid stating 
that the upper rolling surfaces did not roll the tea. 
CroBs-oxamiiicd, witness said that formerly the space 
between the upper rolling surface and the lining of 
the T. A. Roller was only about an eightli or six- 
teenth of an inch. Afterwards a brass jacket was 
supplied in place of the wooden one anu then an 
inch and three quarters interval was left and this 
allowed for a greater quantity of leaf being rolled 
tliaii formerly when the wooden lining was very thick. 
— Q - — VVhat made you keep a useless machine like 
the Rapid for 10 iiiontlis:' — A. — A useless maebino ? 1 
did not say it was iiseloas. — y. — I think ouo would 
gather that from your answers to counsel in examina- 
tion in chief. — .1. -Extreme questions wore put to 
mo. I said if the Rapid was carelessly or hurriedly 
revolved the leaf would not revolve. — Q. I cer- 
tainly understood and gathered from your several 
answers that the Rapid was quite a useless machine ? 
Then it was a useless machine!—./. — Certainly not. 
- Q. — Did you not got a guarantee with the defendant’s 
machine. I got what I considered to bo equally good, 
I have the assurance in writing that in the event 
of any contingencies arising I shall be protected, 
(i'.— Did yon ask for that? A. — Yes. I asked for 
it. V.— Wliy? .1.— Because I had lieoid a good 
deal of talk about some litigation likely to arise out 
of rollers. 
Major Day. R.E., was next called. He said; I 
am a Major of tlie Royal Engineers. Mr. Goodavo 
was our lecturer on mechanism at Woolwich, where 
I completed my study ns an engineer. I left about 
December lH(i7. I took second place on leaving. 
I got gold medal which is given tor the rao.st 
distinguished cadet of season. I have had a scientific 
training therefore, in mechanics. Oitr practical 
course wo went through the Royal Arsenal. 1 
was in ciiargo of the printing and lithographic 
machinery at Oliatbam when I was Secretary oAlie 
Royal Engineers Institute, that was from 1881 to 
1889, when 1 came out here. I had a soda-water 
manufactory once with all the machinery, and in 
addition to that I was sent as one of tho Travelling 
Inspectors of Science Classes for the Soionoe and 
iVrt Department, South Kensington. This took me 
to tho manufacturing districts a good deal, and I 
used to meet nianufi'cturers, and generally they 
went over their woii. ; with me, so that I saw their 
machinery while in the Arsenal; they make every- 
thing— from big giuiH to percussiun caps and all 
kinds of machinery. I have read the specification 
and studied the drawings filed by tho plaintiff in 
takinij out ills letters patent from the "Exeelaior" 
machine, and 1 examined his models and 
also tho model of tho Triple Action Roller. 
Ill the “ Excelsior ” the upper rolling surface 
is moved backwards and forwards by tho box 
by coming in contact with it. (Model of the Triple 
Action machine pointed out.) U'he upper rolling 
surface in tlie doioiidaiit’s macliiiie does not receive 
motion like Mr. Jackson’s niacbino. It receives its 
horizontal iiiutiou by tho continuation of tlie craiik- 
piii upwards, which is fixed to a pulley, and tliat 
drives tlie second pulley by moans of a hand, and 
Hint drives the upper rolling surface. Working the 
macliine as I do not know that it receives two motions- 
Yon have got to roll the tea in theliux, and it is necessary 
tliat you must give tlie box and tho upper rolling surface 
an isochronous mutiuii, that is moved in equal timel 
then you also impart tliis rolling iiiotioii by irioai'S 
of these two pulleys and tlie liaiid. Witness next de- 
scribed tlio train of mecliaiiism in the 'J'riple Actio" 
Roller, luid said that witli Dofeiidiint’s Roller it d“‘ 
not matter if tlie jacket was used or not; t'*® 
machine could be worked iiU the same ; 
with tlie ’’Excelsior” tlie case was ditlerent, a"" 
tho maebino would not work without tlie jacket. J" 
Ills opinion asiin expert motion was not imparted to the 
upper rolling surface in .Jackson’s "Excelsior" ‘V’l" 
Brown’s Triple Action in same way; tlie upper rolli"8 
surface of the ” Excelsior ’’ would not act it it did n" 
come in contact with the jacket : tlie boniplatos ■' 
the defendant’s machine were not equivalent to tjie 
bearings in .lacksou’s machine, and conlU not b" 
