672 
THE Tropical agriculturist. 
[March i, 1892, 
motion to the upper rolling surface through the case 
or jacket surrouncling it, ho contended there was al)nn- 
dant proof of its novelty and usefulnesa. Those com- 
etent to apeak on the subject had admitted thattliere 
ad never l)een in Ceylon before any tea rolling 
machine which had the same ai*vangemcnt as this 
one, the arrangement being tiio very reverse of that 
existing in tlio Standard which liau been proved to 
be the most advanced machine of tlie class at the 
time Mr. Jackson took out his patent; and the 
utility of the invention had been equally well estab- 
lishod. The admission had been made by witnesses 
on the other side that the Kxcolsior was a useful 
machine, and witnesses on the plaintiffs side had 
thoroughly proved its usefulness in respect of the 
almost total absence of friction, of the upper rolling 
surface being free to vertical motion, of licing more 
easily fed, and better yontilated, and of being more 
economical as regards time and labour than any other 
machine that had preceded it, all those forms of use- 
fulness being derived from tlio improved arrangement. 
Asking the Court, as far asitpossiuly could, to place it- 
self intheposition ofa nicchanical engineer who was 
offering to the public a machine of a particular class, in 
language suited to workmen of ordinary skill who 
were conversant with that particular class of machine, 
ho proceeded to quote from a judgment of, he supposed, 
the greatest Patent lawyer that ever lived, the late 
Sir (xeorge Jessell, master of the Kolls, in the case 
of Hinks v. The Safety Tnghting Company (Law 
lieporta. Chancery Division rt(i7) to the effect. — “ \ 
am anxious, as I believe every judge is who knows 
anything of Patent law, to support honest bona fde 
inventors wlio have octtially invented something 
novel and useful, and to prevent their patents from 
being ovortiirnod on mere technical objections, or 
on mere cavillings with the language of the spoci- 
tication so as to deprive the inventor of the benefit 
of his invention. This is sometimes called a bene- 
volent mode of construction, l^erhaps that is not 
the beat torni to use, but it may he described as con- 
struing a specilication fairly with a judicial anxiety 
to support a really useful invention, if it can be snp* 
orted on a reasonable constniction of tlio patent,” 
'hat was how His Honour had to read the patent. The 
same learned judge in (Jlark v. Adie (I^aw Reports to 
Appeal Cases) said—** In construing the specification 
we must construe it like all written documents, taking 
the words and seeing what is the meaning of those 
words when applied to the subject matter ” ; and Lord 
tJnstice James confinned that when he said, “ Of 
course in ftscertainiiig the meaning of words used, you 
endeavour to put yourself as much as possible in 
the position of the person using them.” That 
was what he asked Hia Honour to do in this caso— 
to put hhnscU in the position of plaintiff when he 
or his draughtsman wrote the specification in 1881. 
Mr. Browne ha<l asked the Court to hold tliat the 
plaintiff’s invention consisted of what he had left out 
of the plaint, contending tliat the pith and marrow 
of plaintiff’s invention was expressed hy the words 
“ whereby such rolling surface is left free as regards 
vertical movement from the mechanism operating it.” 
and that the defendant hud not infringed that hecause 
he did not allow any freedom of motion to his upper 
rolling surface. The langiiage itself showed that that 
could not bo the invention that plaintiff claimed. 
What plaintiff claimed was “ the amingement of 
transmitti iig motion to the upper rolli ng surface through 
the case or jacket the clause whereby ” tfec., mean- 
ing that what it stated was one of the results 
or consequenccB flowing from the arrangement. 
His learned fiiend said it was singular that plaintiff 
should be silent in liis specification as to other 
useful results. Well, if the Court read the specifi- 
cation it would find that all the other useful purposes 
served by this improved arrangement were mentioned. 
It was stated *‘ enclosing the rolling surface A so 
that”— this was the result— “it can be weighted to 
give the required pressure to the leaf.” In the 
Standard they could not give the roipiired pressuro 
to the leaf but in ' the Rxeclsior they could in 
conacquonco of this new arrangement. An- 
other useful result mentioned in the specification 
WAH that the nuu^hiue was fed through the 
hopper ; and tlien it was stated that “ owing 
to tlio jacket being can-ied just clear of the 
table” — that was also a necessai'y part of the im- 
jiroved arrangement — ••friction, wear and tear is thus 
reduced” that being anotlior useful result. As to the in- 
terpretation of the phrase “ transmitting motion 
through the case or jacket,” ho could not understand 
why through should not receive its ordinary meaning 
of “ by moans of,” and he should bo very much aston- 
ished if the court held, as Mr. Browne contented, 
that through^ must mean in a transverse sense — straight 
through preserviug the upper rolling surface always 
in the same plane as the jacket suiToiindiug it. 
The “dead centre” in tho case round which 
they could not both move harmoniously was the 
jac.*ket. That was really the only problem the Court 
had to solve, and that was the reason wliy he had said 
and honestly believed that the Court had no need 
of aHHeKHors. The experience of a civil engineer and 
a military engineer had not necessarily settled the 
question.^ Which the Court had to settle was wliat 
the engineer wlio drafted the specification meant 
as the invention, and it really resolved itself into 
the little word “ jacket.” The passages he would read 
from tho specification would sliow, he argued, that it 
could only mean what tlie plaintiff said it meant, 
namely the whole of what had been called tho 
lining— the frame-work from side to side, from 
crank pin to bar, and all tliat was attached 
thereto, including the bow bracket. Any workman 
conversant with tea machinery of this class in 
Ceylon at the date when the specification was filed 
could not possibly read it in any other sense than 
the sense in which it had been read by the plaintiff 
and liis witnesses wlio were inochaiiical engineers. He 
quoted. “lu carrying out my invention 1 employ a 
zig-zag crank shaft having tfiree crank pins formed 
in it. This shaft I place in a vortical nositiou aiul 
connect tho upper crank to tho top rolling surface 
by moans of a suitable bearing.” Now, the little error 
ill that expression in itself illuminated the sense 
of tho word “jacket.” The Court would find that 
this imperfect way of expressing it showed it more 
clearly almost than if it had been most accurately 
expressed. Ho would sliow the Court how, directly. 
They knew, and even tho other side would admit, 
that tho shaft was in no way connected to the top 
rolling surface, and, to show what was meant in that 
connection ho would go on to another part of the 
specification, to tho part where it «aid:-~“A” is tlie 
top roiling surface usually composed of wood; “B” 
is a case ov ^ jacket loosely enclosing tlio rolling 
surface “ A so that it can be weighted to give 
tiiu required pressure to the leaf and can bo raised 
or lowered witliin the jacket by means of tho chain 
^ purpose of feeding tho machine from 
the hopper “D” “K” is a bar firing attached to 
the case “B” and arranged to slide in the hearing 
“ ” while, togetlier with tho crank pin K carries 
the case “ B.” and provonts it bearing its weight 
on tho under table at any time, although the case B 
actually come nearly in contact witn it.” From 
this the Court could SCO exactly what the top rolling 
surface in the first part meant — it meant the whole oi 
tlie machinery that was siiperpoHod above the under 
table which it came nearly in contact with, in fact, 
there was no doubt that when the Court read through 
the specifications it would come to this conclusion. 
He should refer to it again when ho came to discuss 
the (juestion so much pressed about as to whetlier it 
was a part of the drivin^niochariiBm,and the one part 
carried the leaf about m its rectilinear progress to 
and fro,^ backwards and forwards, helping to circulate 
the tea in the course of rolling while the pressuro and 
weight upon it came from tho actual lid, or upper 
rolling surface, but, considered as a whole, the whole 
of tho superstructure, with its lid, frame, box and bow 
was the upper rolling surface of the machiuo. This part 
of the specifications showed conclusively what was 
meant by tlio jacket, and there was tho last passage ho 
Could quote: — “Friction wear and tear is thus reduced, 
and by slackening the screw S tlie rolling surface 
A with tho jacket B can be titled over.” He tliought 
that was cojiclusive as shewing tho sense in which 
Mr. Jackson used the word and aa all working 
