SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 448, 5 March 1909, Page 11

SUPREME COURT.

! RIVAL SCAFFOLDING BRACKETS. ALLEGED BREACH OF A PATENT. Tho hearing of the caso between tho Humphries Patent Bracket and . Scaffold Co. T. Butters, Halo and Co. was concludod lefore Air. Justice Cooper yesterday. Mr.' Skerrett, K.C. (with him Mr. Peacock), appeared on behalf /of plaintiffs, and Mr. • doling for defendants.'

This was an aotion to. restrain defendant; from-nlamifaoturing and selling any scaffolding brackets in infringement of a. patent holt by plaintiffs. According to plaintiffs, the whole construction and method of using ;k----fendants' bracket was an imitation of plaintiffs'. bracket. They asserted that nil defendants had dono was' simply to transpose, rh< hoot and eye attachment,.. The main point: of. reselnblance between the two brackets wero:':(l). That both were designed to hanj upon a building by a single screw; (2) thai each,-had a flat hook with correspondingly and (3) both contained provisior for preventing .' side , swinging. Defendant! , alleged that plaintiffs' invention had been anticipated by an iron bracket used by J. ll Fairhurit, formerly of/Worser Bay, but yon of-Dinhevirko, in 1002, 1903, and 1904, bj an iron bracket used , by' James Ranson, <il Wellington, from 1893 to 1805, and by tbf ordinary wooden bracket in universal use bj builders. They denied having infringed plaintiffi!' vpatent, which in their opinion was ol no public utility. Mh'Young, in opening the case for the defendants, said that .the Court was not much by the. evidence of expert witnesses 'in case, . • ■HiS Honour: Anyone with ordinary knowledge of mechanics can easily grasp the points of difference claimed between the two inventions .' in. question. ■ ' Resuming, counsel stated that it was significant "that plaintiffs had not "called the of their invention, who had been preSerit in Court.- In order to constitute an infringement of a combination patent, the ©ombifiation must be taken as a whole, i.e., the'substance of a combination must be taken '—if .one essential part"was ;missing, then there:was no infringement. Then again, if cn inventor, in his'specifications, descriied a particular method of carrying out his invention/ he was held to that particular method; and,if another inventor obtained tho same results by means of some other method of carrying out . the principle, it - was not iiii infringement-? ■ ~ His^.Horiqor: : :'-..-That •• i». f : 'to. say, il ft.. .combination . of -old . methods - produces , a result. not ■,-previously secured. hi conclusion; counsel'submitted that defendants had arrived', at'the same result bj adopting a different method from , that used by plaintiffs. , . The first witness called on behalf of defendants .was John who patentee a ptacket before plaintiffs' invention -waE Patented. He stated that the reason why ht did not oppose Humphries' patent was thai he-considered his own invention was the best. The general idea of the bracket patented.by him to him by Humphries, who was his foreman for some years He goffered to transfer his interest in his bracket" to plaintiffs, but tho transaction was never* completed. : . . Td\Mr. Skerrett: Before he patented hi; invention he experimented with a number oi kinds of brackets. '.He had used his owe bracket in connection with work on his own .house .properties. At tho expiry of foui yedts he allowed his own patent to drop. ' Evidence was also given by the undernamed: Jas. (Ranson, builder; Geo. Richard .Hales, engineer, Port Ahurin (inventor oi .defendants' patent), and James Thomas Hunter," patent agent and engineer. . On- behalf of plaintiffs, Percy Pickering, carpenter and Builder, and E. S. Baldwin] patent agent, were recalled to give evidence in rebuttal. :... ,i . Judgment, was reserved'. ~ ■ .