PATENT SCALES.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 16435, 31 January 1919, Page 4

PATENT SCALES.

CASES BEFORE THE COUBT

The patent scales cases in which. George William Bauscke, trading as the Micrometer Scales Company, is proceeding against various local business people, came again before Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Bouscho is claiming £80 2s from the Supply Stores, Ltd., for scales supplied, £75 '3s from "William Tuck, £atJ 3s Gd from H. M. Hawkins, £59 8s from J. H. Blackwell £33 from the i'apanui Stores Co., Ltd., and £33 torn H. n. Low, trading as H. B. Low, unlimited. On Monday the evidence ol the Hon. G. W. Ruswll, Minister of Internal Affairs, who was subnasnaed Py defendant in the case of Bouscne %. Blackwell, was taken. . The first case taken yesterday was Bouscho v. Supply Stores, Ltd. Mr. Alpers appeared for plaintiff, Mr Dougall, with him Mr Flesher, tor defendants, and Mr S. G. Raymond, K.C, for the Department of Internal Affairs. Mr Alpers said he had subpoenaed .» Departmental witnea. to produce certain files and documents. Mr Raymond said he was 7nstructed ou behalf of the Crown to claim that those reports should not be used in evidence. . Mr Dougall said it had been agreed that tho Hon. G. W; Russell's evidence in Blackwell's ease should apply to aU the cases. Mr Alpers said his Worship had already crot sonic sidelights on the case in tne'shape of Mr Russell's evidence, etc. Mr itousche, ho stated, was the proprietor in New Zealand of a scale, and was trading under the name of the Micrometer Scales Company. The position in regard to this machine had been subject to considerable misapprehension on the part of a Government Department. Plaintiff arrived in New Zealand in January, 1917, with a c-crtain number of the scales, and tho first; thing he did was to submit a couple of stock scales to the Department of Internal Affairs for verification. The Department sub. mitted the scales to a. rigid examination, and a few days later notified him that they had been passed as efficient and stamped 0.K., and that he could go on soiling them. He went on selling them in various parts of New Zealand for six months, and was then askod by the Department to submit for inspection a 201b capacity scale. He lud none of these in stock, but he submitted a smaller one. A few day 3 later he learnt that a deputation of weights and scales inspectors had asked a, client of his to allow them to examine the machine which he had sold to him. As a result of this he called upon Mr J. W. Hislop, Under-Secretary of Internal Affairs, who stated that he had learnt that the Scv. , South Wales authorities refused to stamp the scales, and that representations had been' made to him and officers of his Department that when the scales wero turned down in New South Wales Mr Bousche had come to New Zealand. Mr Bousche. however informed hiui that he had been several months in 2s T ow Zealand before he learnt of t*e "turning down" of the scales jn the Australian State. Interviews in which the American Consul-General took part followed, and then, to get the matter settled, Mr Bousche asked Mr Hislop for a critical and exhaustive examination of the scales bv a commission of leading engineers. Three engineers wore ap i pointed, one was Mr E. Parry, Chief Government Hydro-electrical Engineer, another was Mr Holmes. Chief Engineer to the Public Works Department, and the third -was a gentleman whose name Mr Bousche did not know. Plaintiff was required to give demonstrations, and in the course of the investigation he learnt that there was a critic in the background in the person, he believed, of •Mγ Dalton, tho British Trade Commissioner, who it was inferred was chaperoning British manufactured scales.' In fact, the commission appointed to review the Micrometer scales also had to review two other scales. Plaintiff was given to understand, and did understand, that the finding was entirely favourable to him. Before leaving Wellington for Auckland, ho called' upon Mr Hislop for th.> report, bat Mr Eislop said he did not have it. Mr Bousohe then called on Mr Parry, and Mr Parry said he would send in tho report within an hour, adding: "Don't you worn- about your stv'.es. The report is favourable, and you can go on. selling." Mr Bousche called upon Mr Hialop again the next day, but Mr Hitlop &aid the report had not yet corofi in. Plaintiff went on With his business as a result, of Mr Parry's remarks. He had been in Auckland ten davs. when he received a telegram stating that the Department would not object to his placing the ?.ficrometer scales on the market, but at the same time informing him that legislation was contemplated which would have the effect of classifying the kinds of scales need by the public, and the present position was without prejudice to any future action being taken. Mr Bousche went on selling till November, when he received a request from the Under-Secretary to call on him and the Minister when convenient, and it was arranged that plaintiff should do so when he returned to Wellington in three months' time. On March Btn, 1918, he called on Mr Russell, and a conversation ensued, of which a fairly faithful report had been given by the Minister in his evidence, though Mr Bousche could supplement it in certain details. The Minister told him he contemplated legislation the same as m other Dominions. The scales, however, ■were only banned in New South Wales, because the principle of "counter-steel yard" was not allowed in that State. It -was only a technical #o' J" e scales were sold in Victoria.. Queensland. South Africa. Canada, and several other States. Later. Mr Bousche was siven to ytidoritand that he could

go on selling as long as he Lad-the department's stamp. Mr Alpers called Joseph William Allen Heaney, an officer of the Department of Internal Affairs, who said he had the report Mr Alpers roferred to in, his possession. "Will you produce it?" asked Mr Alpeiß. , • • x Mr Raymond rose at this juncture. Tho Department, he explained, was taking no sides in the case. The objection taken by the Department was on the ground ihat production of the report would not be in the public interest. ThoTwport was of a confidential n.-.ture forwarded to the tarv of Internal Affairs. If his Worship held that the document should not be produced, he (Mr Raymond) asked that his Wr.rsWp draw _no inference either against plaintiff or in his favour, but simplv regard matters as it the document "had never been mentioned. Mr Raymond quoted authorities in support, of his submission that production conld not bo demanded. If tho Department's counsel stated that the production of th' document was prejudicial to tho public interest, that relieved his Worship of any further responsibility in the matter. His Worship said the report was a State document, the productoon ot which was declared by the officer m TThose charge it was to be prejudicial to tho public interest. Mr Alpers said he could not say anything against that. He, however, de-. plored the fact that a report relating to scales should bo described as a fatate document. . ~ Bouscho gave evidence upon the! lines of counsel's opening. New South "Wales was the onlv country where the scales had been banned, and it was forbidden there on account of the •/steel-yard principle." Mr flusseU's principal objection to tho scales was that the public could not see the weights, but plaintift ■ pointed out that this could be remedied I at a cost of 6-s. He could not account for people saying their machines were , not up to sample unless a machine was , bumped' or broken in transit, but wit- , ness gave a guarantee with every machine. Evidence was given by plaintiff as to his discussions with the Supply Stores, Ltd. When he called upon them a piece of bacon which weighed lib on their machine weighed I7ozs on his. The machine they purchased they eubsequently returned upon the ground that it*weighed exactly the samo as their previous machine. Replying to Mr Doug-*ll, witness stated that th"e discount allowed Mr Blackwoll was nob 'endorsed on the original order retained in his order book; the reason for this was that he did not want other customers to know what discount ho had allowed to others. He had sold scales on tho representation that they were suitable for grocers and storekeepers, and purchasers evidently satisfied thomselves on that point. He rcpresentecl to purchasers that the scales were more sensitive than 95 per cent, of other scales: he told them that, approximately his scales would weigh as fine as one 123 th part of an ounce. When approaching probable purchasers ho demonstrated the capabilities of his scales, and invited them to weigh goods on. their own scales and re-weigh them on his. At the Supply Stores a pound of bacon, when re-weighed, represented 17 ounces, if he remembered rightly. Witness gave details respecting the results obtained at other shops when goods were re-weighed on his scales. At. this juncture the caso was adjourned till 10 a.m. to-day.