June i, 1892.] 
THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST, 
01? 
THE TEA ROLLEB PATENT CASE. 
DECISION AGAINST JACKSON. 
In the District Court of Colombo today (May 2od,) 
Mr. Owen Morgan gave jndgment in favour of the 
defendants in the action for infringement of tea- 
roller patent, Jackson v. Colombo Commercial 
Company and Brown. The following is the full text 
of the deliverance : — 
This is an action for nn injunction to restrain the 
two defendants from importing into the island and 
nsing and selling the tea-leaf rolling machine known 
as “Brown's triple action tea-roller.” and from other- 
wise infringing an invention of the plaintiff's for 
the rolling of toa-loaf for which ho had acquired 
certain patent rights. The plaintiff also prays for 
an account of all gains and profits derived by each 
of the defendants from the importing and using and 
selling in the island of tea-leaf rolling machines 
infringing as aforesaid. 
The plaintiff alleges that he was the first and true 
inventor of a certain new and useful invention for 
improvements in machinery or apparatus for rolling 
tea-leaf as declared in his specification and called 
“The Excelsior.” 
The defendants deny that plaintiff was the first 
and true inventor of the invention by him alleged 
to have been new and useful, or that it is 
new and useful or that the specification filed by 
plaintiff describes the nature of the plaintiff's inven- 
tion, or that the defendants infringed any exclusive 
right granted to the plaintiff and they allege that 
the first defendant (as the importer) is the inventor of 
the invention known as “Brown's triple-action roller,” 
and that the same was an invention new in Ceylon and 
was not only useful within the requirements of the 
requirements of the Invention Ordinance, but pos- 
sessed an utility as a Tea-roller far superior to that 
realized by any machine designed or constructed by 
the plaintiff. 
The specification filed by the plaintiff states that 
he is in possession of an invention for improvements 
in machinery or apparatus for rolling ten-leaf and 
ho therein describes the nature of the invention and 
in what manner the same is proposed. In figure II 
of the drawing filed with the specification, A is 
the top-rolling surface usually composed of wood, 
B is a case or jacket loosely enclosing the rolling 
surface A so that it (A) can be weighted to give the 
required pressure to tne leaf and can be raised or 
lowered within the jacket by means of the chain C for 
the purpose of feeding the machine from the hopper 
D; and B is a bar firmly attached to the case B and 
arranged to slide in the bearing F which together 
with the crank P in K carries the case B and pre- 
vents it bearing its weight on the under table at any 
time although the case B actually comes nearly 
in contact with it. Having described the nature of 
the invention and the manner in which it may be 
used, he asserts what ho considers novel and 
original and therefore claims as his invention three 
arrangements or combinations, the first of which 
only the Court has to deal with in this case, for that 
is the infringement which plaintiff complains of. It 
is this: “'The arrangement of transmitting motion 
to the top rolling surface through the case or jacket 
surrounding it whereby such rolling surface is left 
free as regards vertical movement from the mechan- 
ism operating it.” That is the invention in the 
Excelsior which the plaintiff complains has been 
infringed by “ Brown's triple-action roller.” 
The first machine for rolling tea leaf which the 
plaintiff also claims as his invention and which he 
calls the Standard, was a machine which plaintiff 
invented in India and which he patented there. This 
machine involved him in India in litigation with 
Kinmond who asserted that plaintiff had in- 
fringed his patent in respect of a machine which 
he had previously invented, and the plaintiff was 
obliged by arrangement with Kinmond to inamifac- 
ture the Standard under a license from Kinmond. 
The Standard was never patented in Ceylon and only 
ll.'i 
one of the Standard was sold in Loudon and im- 
ported into the island and worked on Loolecoudra 
estate. The jacket of the ^Standard rested on the 
lower surface, and its heavy weight made it stiff to 
drive. The driving mechanism of the Standard was 
connected with the upper plate or surface or cap, 
the jacket surrounding the cap being left free 
or loose. It was an expensive machine, and a 
good deal of time was wasted in getting the leaf 
through the centre of the cap. The jacket hod to 
be made heavier to prevent jerking and jumping whilst 
in motion. This led the plaintiff to contrive a machine 
which was less costly and more easily driven and he 
hit on the Excelsior which he states is just the con- 
verse of the Standard. In the Excelsior he took the 
driving mechanism from the cap and i ttached it to 
jacket, and this machine proved to be a great improve- 
ment on the Standard. 
There can hardly be any doubt that the plaintiff 
was the first and true inventor of the Excelsior and 
that it was a novel and useful machine. The only 
question remaining for consideration is whether the 
defendants' “triple action roller" hasinfringed the 
arrangement in the Excelsior of transmitting motion 
to the top rolling surface through the case or jacket 
surrounding it. 
The case or jacket, the plaintiff asserts, 
consits of a wooden case attached to a 
metal frame and secured to it by bolts — 
all forming one piece and designated by him “ tho 
case or jacket." 
The top or upper rolling surface moves vertically 
and can be raised or lowered into the case or jacket 
which loosely encloses it. 
What is the case or jacket of the Excelsior ? Is 
it the woodwork or wooden lining combined with 
the metal frame to which it is attached, or is it the 
woodwork or wooden lining alone? In appearance 
the whole upper part of the machine is one piece, 
and can be tilted up in its entirety ; nevertheless it 
consists of two distinct parts— tho metal frame and 
the woodwork or wooden lining. This metal frame, 
by whatever name it may be called or whatever shape 
it may assume, is still what engineers call “a con- 
necting rod,” for it has all tho a^uncts or parts which 
constitute a connecting rod. It takes the form in 
the Excelsior of a metal frain e or plate, and is so 
attached to the crank pin at one end and the guiding 
rod at the other, that it may be tho means of 
converting circular into rectiUnoor motion. Thera 
has been a good deal of conflicting evidence on 
this point, but tbe weight of testimony is in favour 
of the defendants' contention, that tho met^ frame 
is a connecting rod, and that the case or jacket is 
the woodwork or wooden lining alone ; that the metal 
frame is a part of the driving mechanism of the 
machine and gives motion to the woodwork 
or wooden lining, this woodwork or wooden 
lining being tho case or jacket which drives the upper 
rolling surface 
Upon the evidence it is abundantly clear that the 
upper rolling surface reerives its reciprocating and 
horizontal motion entirely through the wood work 
or wooden lining, which is truly the esse or jacket 
by impsot with it, that is it receives its mot on from 
the cite or jacket immediately adjacent to it. If the 
esse or jacket Is removed the upper rolling surface 
would have no molioi,, except the vertical movement 
upward and downward wbiob it has qoits indepen* 
dent of the ease or jsoiet, aotiug merely as a weight 
on the tea leaf and giving preasure to it. 
In the triple action roller motion is not imparted 
to the npper rolling surface by or through the ease or 
jscki‘t. The upper relling sntfaoo has no impact 
whataoevoc with its case or jncket. Tbe whole machine 
Can be worked and motion imparted to tho upper 
rolling surface without the case or jacket. The upper 
rolling eniface has it.- horizjiital as well as ita rota- 
tory motion complete, and quite independent of the 
case or jicket. Tbe machine ia complete without the 
ease or jacket, for, it was removed from the machine 
and it worked perfectly. 
Both RiK hints— the Excelsior as well as the triple- 
action roller — have tbe same objeot in view ; both 
