674 
THE TROPICAL AQRIOULTURI3T. 
I March i, 1892. 
and bricg out an invention that would clear the two, 
and now be thought he hftd done fo because be had 
made hia roller round instead of square, as they bad 
mado their’a bnt chiefly on acount of two things, namely, 
the eccentric Di< tiuu of the jacket and the upper lid 
together in the samo plane, and llie independent 
motion round its own axis of the upper lid by 
meana of the pulleys. They would give defoudants’ 
machine this: they would admit that pliintifF's 
machine had no eccentric motion, and their upper 
lid had no independent rotatary movement of its own ; 
but that did not givo the defendant's any ri^bt to 
patent their machine. For the purpose of argumant, 
ne would admit ihat defendant’s machine was very 
muchs upenor to the Excelsior; and that the difFt rences 
were improvcmeotR, but thia was all irrelevant. 
Defendants must not take over plaintiff’s leading 
principle and improve on that. They might bo 
useful improvements and they might bw patentable, 
but it defendant’s were going to patent th-m, they 
should take care to disliiiguijih their inv' ntiou from 
that deHcribed in a prior patent, nud claim only what 
bHlonged to them. Of course that wi.uld not be enough 
because they would have to g' t a license from piniuiifi 
or lay themselves open to an action for iufrir ge- 
meut. They bad patented their invention — perhaps 
these improvements had carried the day for tb. m 
and they had got their Iett‘TB patent ; but defen- 
dauts must Dot use their maebiue in public without 
plaioliff’s leave if, as he asko I the Court to hold, 
they bad taken the loading principle of plaintitf’s 
machine. With the exception of the eccentricity of 
the motion of the jacket the upper lid and the 
indepeudent rotary motion the machines were precisely 
the same. The Court could not look at them without 
seeing this, and assuming tt at the Court coDCurred 
with the F^peciheations in the way that ho said any ordi- 
nary inttdlig' ut man would cuiiAtruo them, the only 
authorities he would af>k the Court to refer to except 
the passages be hud read in Johnson’s Putent 'd Manual, 
was the well-known case of Vroeley v. i?cn«w, in 
Daw Journal Chiineollor’s Reports, vol. o7 au‘i there 
the question was an arrangement for the automatic 
feedii g and n furnace. As the Dord Justice said, 
furnaces had been fed ever since the world began, 
so the objict was a well-koowu object; they had 
been fed in all kinds of ways, and ho long as the way 
of doing it was new, that was enough. Lord Bowon 
perhaps put it more concisely; be said “what is the 
substance of the invention were 'i It is a mschino 
which prodncfls a 5ucc»'s#fal intermiti'^nt retiring 
stoker/' and so on, and wound np by siiyi g “ the 
simple question is not whether the addition is n 
material one or whether the ommissiou is material, bnt 
you must go back again and ask yonrsf Ives whether 
what has been taken is the substaitoo and essouce of 
the invention.” The Court musf put all likeness a(*ido. 
The maobiues might bo exactly like cne another, ns 
his leArned friend bad said, and yet the leading prin- 
ciple might not have been abstracted from them and 
they might be very different in struoturo and yet con- 
tain the leading priociple. If that were so, no mut- 
ter what the difference were, no matter what was 
left out of the Excelsior or added to the triple action 
—if the same idea was in both — then the Court must 
take the plaintiff’s pan and prevent defendants 
from using bis machine till plaintiff's license 
expired* He also asked the oonrfc to boar lu 
mind the oiroumstances under which Mr. Jack- 
son came to Ceylon. He was tho rioneor of 
useful tea machinery in Ceylon, and the Excelsior was 
a pioneer invention and be asked the Court to bear 
that in mind. Tho Court was not to think of India 
or Java. He asked the Court if this patent had been 
taken over by defeodauta as a pioneer iovention, and 
that was a very important point. As Lord Justice'. 
Bowen said “ Now I think it goes to the root of the 
case to remember that this as was described . by one Is 
the counsel was really a pioneer invention, and it is by 
the right of that that it seems to me wo ought to con* 
eider the question. Whether there have been variation o 
or omUsious and additions which prevent the inaohiues 
which U complained of from being an infringement 
of iho plaintiff I With regard to t'^e variations, 1 take 
precisely tho same view that tho Lord Justice has taken 
and I will not travel over the matter which be has gone 
over in detail. With regard to the additions and 
omiss'ons it is obvious that additions may be an im- 
pruveuieut., aud that omiasions may bn im improve* 
ment, but the mere fact that there is an omission 
does not enable you to take the plaintiff's Tatei-t. 
He had now a very fi w words to say ns to the 
first defendnnt’fl liability. The oilier side had tried 
to exempt him from any liability, but by his own 
mouth be had condemned himself, for he had said he 
wan the agt^nt of the Company to sell the mnohinrg, 
which they imported under a license from him (Mr. 
Buownk : Pardon me, not tho agent for a special 
purpose. He has not fidmittod lhat. He is one of fhe 
tmployea of the Company.} Never mind whotber he 
was on© of a liundred or the solit'iry agent ; it was 
well known in law that an agent could not plead his 
agency— he was equally wi'hin his principal a tort 
feanor. Ii was within bis knowledge that these 
machines bad been sold, and he had joined with the 
OompHDv in their answer, and instead of putting in an 
iudepetidont answer saying he knew nothing about 
it, he joined with ibo Company in putting the 
iKsuu before the Court. If there had been in- 
fringemei t or nut it whs iropONsible to say, if the 
Beuond dofuudant wan guilty that he was not equally 
guilty. 
With this counst'l returned his seat, and the Court 
reserved judgment. 
SOME INTERESTING QUININE 
STATISTICS, 
The following figures show the qualities of cinchona- 
baik offered at the au stious iu Amsterdam and Loudou 
during the year 1891: — 
In London (21 auctions) 17,121 packages Ceylon, 
17.15*2 ditto B itish Indian, 1,193 Java, 1,113 ditto S. 
American Oalisaya, 4,827 of var.ous kinds; total 41,706 
package.**. 
In Amsterdam (10 auctions) a total of 42,520 pack- 
ages hurk, alrnOHt exclusively from Java. 
The equivalent of sulphate of quinine represented 
by the total qiianti y of ciuchuna Fold to manu- 
facturers at the Londou auctions of 1891 is esti- 
mated at 96,378 kilo**., and that sold at the Amsterdam 
auctions (including 15,663 killos, represeutod by a largo 
piivate sale of batk) at 135,305 kilos. The total 
quantity of quinine bought by all the makers in 
Amsterdam and London Ust year is tberoiore approxi- 
mately 1317/3 kilos,, OP 8,181,000 oz. With regard to 
the quantities of quinine m the bark bought by the 
various manufacturers, the Amsterdam statistics alone 
offer a fairly reliable guide. Tuey disoloFe the follow- 
ing result 
The Auerbach work bought 29,467 kilos, quinine ; 
the Brunswick works, 26,132 kilos.; the Mannheim 
and Amsterdam workn, 10,147 kilo^.; ibc Philadelphia 
factory, 15,148 kilos.; tho Now York factory, 12,909 
kilos.; Messrs. Howard & Sons, 6,737 kilos. ; the 
Frankfort on-Main and Stuttgart works, 6,190 kilo^.; 
Pelletier's works, 2.872 kilos.; Taillendier’s works 1,700 
kilos.; various other makers, 2,370 kilos. To these 
figures muHl bo added 8,964 kilos, purchased by the 
Auerbach works, and 6,699 kilos, purchased by other 
German works by private treaty In Amsterdam. 
In connideriog these figures it must aLo be 
borne in mind that if the figures for London 
could bn added to those given, the roFult would 
reverse the positions of several buyers. The Mannheim 
factory, for instance, buvs more than ooo-tbird of 
lh ' bark sold at tho London auctions, whereas the 
pnrehasoB of Auerbach and Brunswick in this market 
are comparatively iusigniticant. 
Tlie statistics we have given abow that Germany 
bought 93,599 kilos, or 69 1 per cent, of the quinine in 
the bark sold in Amsterdam, lucluding tho bark ob- 
