March i, 1892. J 
THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST, 
6 73 
people would understand it who knew any thing 
about this clasa of macdiinery at tlio time. The 
other side desired to confine the word “jacket” 
Bimply to the lining. They argued that the lining 
was as much an integral’ part of the machine as 
any other part. iJut let the Court look at the 
drawings or at the machine in operation. Let the 
Court remember that even a hostile interest had 
said that the lining was inereW a collection of loose 
pieces of wood bound un. It really^ \saa almost 
absurd to say that a liunulo of loose pieces of wood 
could constitute an integral and independent part 
of the maclii!ie. Asa matter of fact there was no rea- 
son why the whole superstructure should not bo cast 
in one piece. The learned judge might just 
as well say that the silk lining of his 
dress waistcoat was tho waistcoat and not 
the cloth outside it, and, according to tho arguments 
of the other side, he might just as well say that the 
cloth outside it was a connecting rod between the 
silk lining and the coat outside the w'aistcoat. The 
court would renieiiiber that in the Standard the driv- 
ing gear was fixed firmly to the top rolling sur- 
face and carried the loose jacket, which actually 
rested on tho low’or surface, about with it and of 
course tore the machine to pieces. To reverse that 
arrangement and drive the weighted lid through tho 
jacket, it was necessary in order to reduce friction to 
carry it in suspense just above the surface of the 
under rolling table and the court would remember 
that Mr. Jackson had said why he had to make so 
strong a frame — because it now had to boar all tho 
energy communicated to the driving mechanism, and 
it had to be mad© heavy on account of the large quantity 
of leaf it carried about in circulation, now all the 
difference between tho Excelsior and the triple action 
Jiiachino, reading tho word “jacket” as he asked tho 
court to do, was that, whereas Mr. Jackson had thrown 
the strength of his jacket in that body, they (the de- 
fendants) had thrown tho strength of their jacket 
on tho top of tho jacket so that they might drive 
it from above. The defendants simply di’ovo from 
the top of the jacket and tho plalntilT from the 
bottom. The defendants had to drive from the top 
because they wished to give an indepoTidcnt motion 
to the rolling surface. The defendants had made 
much of their improvements, and had even called 
their attention to the improvement in their machine 
that this iqiper rolling surface had a motion round 
its own axis, while at tho same time it had an 
eccentric motion with the jacket and imparted by 
tho jacket. Ijet the Court look at the defendants’ 
specification. This was their language there : — 
“Causing it to revolve inside tho hollow cylinder 
‘ K.’ while at tlie same time it has the eccentric 
motion imparted to it by the hollow cylinder *K.’ 
They wanted now to alter the word ‘by,’ in that, 
to ‘of ’—a very pretty alteration that would he 
indeed. The Court wonld see for itself how clearly 
that motion was imparted hv their jacket as much 
as it was in the Excelsior. I’ho other side, too, now 
laid stress on the fact, that the spindle drove their 
upper rolling surface and he would invite particular 
attention to the fact that really and truly, even iij 
the Excelsior, the how not merely guided tho upper lid 
through tho spindle hut drove it as well. It must be 
BO. (Mr. liitow'NK : Jackson denied it.) Even Mr. 
Jackson could not deny tho fact. It must be so, because 
the lid was constantly coming in contact with the 
Bliindlo, and therefore it imperceptibly drove it as well 
as guidod it. Jlut this was not enough for their pur- 
pose and therefore they put tho chief driving power 
below. In tho dofoudaiits' machine they had made a 
P^’o^ortionately stronger spindle so that the upper 
rolling surface could be entirely driven through it, 
then, if the Court held that plaintiff was right in his 
acceptation of tho word “ jacket it was clear that the 
defendants nmehino wjw driven as regarded tho eccen- 
tric motion of tho upper lid by the jacket in precisely 
tne same way as was done in the Excelsior— “ though ’ 
”®l®’'^ket or “ by means of” the jacket, only the upjier 
P^^’t H instead of the lower. Ho thought ho had tin- 
miied now tho keniel of the question. Now a famous 
question had been often asked, and Mr. Hrowiio 
tiau said that for five hours he could not get an 
answer from Mr. Jackson, as to whether the jacket 
wasapaitof the driving mechanism. If Mr. Hrownc 
were to ask Mr. Jackson till Doomsday ho would 
not get an answer, for one was asking the question 
on the supposition that what Mr. Jackson meant 
i)V the jacKet was simply the wooden lining, whereas 
Mr. Jackson was answering on the assumption that 
the jacket consisted of the whole superstructrue: tho 
Court could see how true their witnesses were in saying 
that this whole upper part was not a part of tho 
driving mechanism, but was tho driven part; what 
was wanted with the machine was to drive the upper and 
the lower rolling surface over one another so that 
really these were the driven parts. Defendsiits 
might just as well say any carriage between two 
other carriages in a railway train was a part of 
the driving mechanism ; because it communicated 
motion from the carriage in front to the carriage 
behind it. But was not the driving mechanism 
of tho train tho locomotive ? What was the 
object of tho locomotive except to drive tlie 
cairiages? And what was their machine built for 
except to drive these two rolling surfaces one over 
the other in a transverse direction? They might just 
as well call an intermediate carriage in a train a 
“connecting rod.” Fancy asking a guard to “nlace 
your bag in a first cans connecting rod’*’ Would 
the guard understand the request? It would bo 
absolute nonsense. Of course, if the Court interpreted 
jacket in the same way as defendants did, they 
would have been talking sense. He was not going 
to criticise the mechanics, he was perfectly in- 
conipotont to do so. Another point on which empnasis 
had oeen laid was that plaintiff's invention was 
simply the use of a comiectiiig rod, which had been 
known ever since any sort of machinery had been 
constructed If this was so, how was it their great 
rival, Mr. Brown, had not stepped in under tho (3r- 
dinanco and a-ked tho Court to ask the patent 
authorities to revoke his patent ou the ground that 
all he had patented w’os an ordinary connecting rod? 
That would have relieved them oi ail difficulty; then 
they might have patented their machine without 
giving any guarantee. Now', the tea industry was 
not a thing of recent date. It began late in the 
seventies, and now they were in tho nineties, and ho 
thought they might regard this question from another 
point of view, and he hoped this would conclude it. 
lie should like to know what Mr. Brown senior 
had been doing all this time between 1877 and 1888. 
When they roinombered that from 1848 to 18fi5 his 
inventive genius wua flashing with a series of cor- 
ruscations m coffee maifiunery — in fa.ct he understood 
Mr. Brown today that there was not an iniprovoment 
in coffee which was not the work of his liand; then 
he went to tho famous Kajawolla water works and 
then flew over to Uva and spun tramways in the air 
just like a spider — and after that— he did nothing 1 His 
cliont--to quote tho languagoof his learned friend was 
allowed to come to Ceylon and sell hundredsof machines 
of tliis principle and not a movement would bo made by 
his rival, Mr. Brown. How were they to account for 
that ? Did the court not think it might be accounted 
for in this way He thought Mr. Brt'Wu had told tbt-m 
his interest in tea estates and machinery began about 
6 or Shears ngo. That would bring them to about 
1884. At that very time bis inventivu faculty awoke. 
Tiny could not get out ol the language of mechanics; 
but tho movements of his interest and of hU inveotious 
became “ isochronous”— they began to vibrate at the 
same time and then did the Court nob think that llm 
desire to have a good machine out and to make money 
by it would have spurred on his inveotion aud would 
have quickened his inventive faculties ? But no : from 
1884 to 1888, he had told them, be was iolviug the 
great mechanical difficulty of getting a part of bis 
maobiue to hav© the same eccentric motion as the 
jseket, and to invent pulleys and a strap to give 
the part an independent rotary motion of its own. Ho 
thought there was a iittJo ring of false modesty about 
that, and lie thought that what Mr. Brown was try> 
iiig to do daring these 4 years— and which he unfortn- 
ufttely had not succeeded in — was to escape botween the 
gcylla of the Excelsior, and the Charybdis of the Kapip, 
