THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 16037, 20 October 1917, Page 5

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT,

(Before his Honour Mr Justice Sim.) The civil sittings of the Supreme Court were resumed yesterdav morning.

ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT. Tho case was resumed in which Scott Brothors, Limited (xVlr Wright) sought for a writ of injunction against H. Hepburn aud Son (Mr Raymond, K.C., with him jftr Sargent), to restrain them from infringing Letters Patent 35,763, the property of plaintiffs, described as "an improved high-pressure boilor for a cooking range"; £200 damages, or an enquiry as to damages; and an order that defendants' deliver up, or destroy, all high-pressure boilers mado in infringement of plaintiffs' letters patent. Further evidence on behalf of plaintiffs was given, and Mr Wright put in correspondence which took place betwoen the parties. iMr Raymond, in opening for tho defence, submitted that the action must fail, because of the want of subject matter for a patent. Evidence given showed that the object boiler-makers hadin view in their improvements was to increase tho heating surface. In 1895 a patent was granted to James Troup in respect of a boiler for baths and domestic purposes "to be corrugated, fluted, or indented"; and in 1914 plaintiffs produced a range boiler, but did not patent it, and that boiler with the exception that it did not have a flue in the back of it, was a duplicate of tho plaintiffs' patent boiler. Counsel submitted that boilers so constructed to increase the heating surface were not tho subject matter for patents at all; apart from the question of combustion (regarding which no claim was made in the specifications) such boilers were only glorified kettles, and one might as well claim the right to patent a kettle wilh corrugated sides. If plaintiffs wero entitled to claim a

! patent in the horizontal flue in the upper part of the boiler, then the claim was a monopoly and privilege I which would givo plaintiffs a right ; quite outside of the public interest, and ! was quite beyond what the law regardv I ed as subject matter for a patent. Expert ovidenco in siilnstantiation of counsel's opening was given. „ The case for the defence was not finished when the Court adjourned till 10 a.m. to-day. A MILKING CONTRACT. In order to release a witness from the North "Island, his Honour part heard tho case James Henry Cvoeombo (Mr

Johnston) v. Henare Wakatu Uru (Mr ! Raymond, K.C., with Mm Mr Sargent), - an application for accounts in connexion with an alleged partnership between the parties. Mr Raymond called George Bevington Rowe, dairyman, Tologa Bay, who stated that formerly he had a dairy farm at Tuahiwi, ana in December, 1915, Bold it to Uru; the I area of the farm was 140 acres. Crocombe, who had been working for witness, told him that Uru had arranged for Crocombe to do the milking on

shares. This conversation was before witness's clearing sale. The day witness left for tho North Island, Crocombe and Urn went to the station with him, apd Crocombe said that the arrangement between him and Uru was

that they were to go half shares in milk, calves, and pigs produced on the farms. The Usual thing in connexion with milking agreements was for the man who did the milking to got from £33 10s to £40 out of cach £100 produced ; generally tho milker looked after the management of tho farm. The arrangement between Uru and Crocombe was a satisfactory one from Crocombo's point of view. In the second conversation nothing was said about the two going shares in the crops. "Witness had been on the farm for fortythree years, but never mad© any profit out of clover crops raised, on it. To Mr Johnston: Nothing had been arranged, so far as he knew, prior to the second conversation. Ho did not hear anything to th# effect that Crocombe was to get one-third -without any responsibility. At witness's clearing sale Crocombe and Uru between them bought nearly everything wanted for the farm. It was not till June last that witness was called upon to recall the conversations. Witness had never been under financial obligations to Uru. When witness in 1915 left the farm ho went out with very little; he had l>een unsuccessful. To_ Mr Raymond: When he started farming he had no money. He came io Canterbury last June on the invitation of Crocombe. _ The further hearing was adjourned till 10.30 a.m. next Friday. i

US* CHAMBERS. . His Honour Mr' Justice Sim, sitting m ChaniDers yesterday, heard a motion for directions for service of originating summons in regard to the estate of "William Cook, timber merchant, and Mrs Annie Cook v. John R. Webb and L. Matson. His Honour mado an order for summons to be served on defendants and on Richard TVakelin, senr., who, on the hearing of the summons,, is to represent all the beneficiaries except j and her three daughters, a&d the Christchurch Hospital. Mr Bowker appeared in support of the motion.

MAGISTERIAL. (Before Mr T. A. B. Bailer, S.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Hugh Donaghy, charged with drnn- ~?^ n . ess > an d with a breach of his prohibition order, was convicted and dis-

charged on the first count and fined 10s, or 48 hours' imprisonment, on the second. REMANDED. Victor Fanning Frascr (Mr Donnelly), who was earlier in the week sentenced to three months' imprisonment for. thefts on the s.s. Maori on October 15th, was further charged with stealing, on the same occasion, a gold bangle, a gold charm and chain, and a gold brooch, valued at £9, the property of Mary Hume. He was remanded till Tuesday next. Lloyd Lovokin Lord (Mr Thomas) was charged that, being a v cserv 'st, ho changed his place of abode without giving the necessary notice within 14 days to the Government Statistician. Mr Thomas, who said that the breach was merely a technical one, asked for a remand to Waimate, and the defendant was accordingly remanded to appear there on -October 26th. ' BY-LAW BREACHES. Charged with cycling on the footpath, Leonard Kirk, Leslie Donnelly, Joseph Henry Salt, and Victor Hoskin were each fined 7s and costs, and Douglas Roberts, for riding a motor-cyclo on the footpath, was fined 10s and costs. Herbert Walton and Joseph Kiraer were each fined 10s and costs for cycling at night without lights, and the latter was fined an extra 20s and costs for refusing to give his name and address i when requested to do so by the police. Harold Mullaney was fined £3 and costs, Frederick R. Stevenson and Henry L. Winder each £2 and costs, and Russell G. Warrington £1 and costs for motoring at excessive speeds. A FAMILY QUARREL. Thomas Squire (Mr Cassidy), charged his brother Frederick Squire (Mr Donnelly) with assaulting him. Mr Cassidy stated that tho defendant had "taken possession of. tho house, home, and wife" of the complainant, who corroborated "the statement, and explained that.! the trouble occurred wh.en the complainant announced that ho was coming back to the house to live with his wife. The defendant's story was that the trouble was all due to the complainant's actions false arcusatons. Tho defendant was fined £3 a~d ccsts, and ordered to enter into a bond of £10 to leave his brother alone for six months. AMBERLEY. (Before Mefsrs G. A. McLean and •J. FitzpafHek, J.P.'s.) William Tliyne was charged with the theft of two turkeys, the property of F. Buscb, of Amberley. Accused was convicted and fined 20s and cost*. J. O'Callaghan", for cycling without lights, was fined 10s and costs.