SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 524, 3 June 1909, Page 9

SUPREME COURT.

CASE OF THE BOY DANE. SOME REMARKS BY HIS HONOUR. ■ Further reference to .the case of the lad Dane, who was recently before the Supremo • Court for Bontcn'co on a gravo charge, was mado by Mr.' Justice Cooper yesterday. 'IThero is," said lijs Honour, "a stato^ - Tncnt in the. l New Zealand Times' this morning concerning the case which is so inaccurate • that I feel it ray duty to refer to it.. Tho :f •< writer of the.- leading' article Estates that tho lad was oharged \with an. assault and waa ■ ordorcd to bo lashed,-segregated for'a month,' V v and to be detained for .seven years'; and that tho 'boy's offending was. tnet by the infliction; of tho most sovero sentence it was in .the powor of tho Court to order.' The lad was : sentenced to bo whipped with ten strokes , with a rod of ijio,'description ordered by tho Minister for Justice, to bo imprisoned for month, and kept apart from : older prisoners, and was then to bo committed to an industrial school; whero ho. will receive a proper t.' V ; education .and training. The whipping which may bo ordered by:tho Court in the case of a person under 16 years' of' ago may bo '25: strokes, and may be Topoated three times; The maximum sentence for tho offenco which ■ ■ tho lad committed is'imprisonment for. life. . Tho whipping I ordered was limited .to ten: ■' strokes—a..shipping which • has often ■. been. inflicted, nfinoroffences treated .by a Magistrate upon summary Tho imprisonment .was a detention merely , pre-, paratory to'the boy entering the Industrial , .School, and tho,detention in.the Industrial • "-."School .gives to tho lad £ho benefit of education, training, and disciplino, and is the same ,;. detention'wLjoK is ordered in the case of any V "neglected 'dhild committed to an 'Industrial V^^SchooWV^ : v .v . TERMS OP A CONTRACT. SELLAR V! KILBIRNIE ESTATE CO. Reserved judgment was delivered by: Mr. - Justice Cooper with respect to the case of :: Andrew Sellfl'r - versus the'. Kilbirnie 'Estate : • Co., Ltd. .This was an action to settle'"the terms of'a . contract. Plaintiff purchased two. sections .. at Itilbirnio from defendants. It was claimed /.>that defendants promls&lito fill'in a hollow, in v•lthow'.andi.adjoinirig witli spoil: from. a sandhill.3oo yards-distant. ' Defendants, - j however ,-filkd in the sections Iby : cutting • ;r/■ into high 'ground at the back 'of them." ; Plaintiff the recession of the contract ■ and damages totalling £184 7s. 7d., or, in the . 'alternative, £140 for breach of agreements :' - Ilis Honour sa.id that plaintiff ar.d a Sir. O'Brien swore that the verbal arrangement was that the. spoil was to: come from places routside. the.^allotments. :Tho s assertion twas contradicted by Mr. P. East, tho agent for the company, by- whom the contract was, in ; the Jirst instance,made." The weight of ..evidence was in favour of< plaintiff's-version of • the undertaking. If the spoil wm to havo come .from tho back part of 'the .allotments •tho company should have stated so in :tho . wntton record of tho matt-er, and the company.s. conduct' cstablished a breach of' tho' • 'Plaintiff's: claim,'.'however, was : ■.' cxaggorated: ; Ho. would give judgment- - for' .- £2o damages, witlrcosts on the lower scale- ;-. allowance for second counsel . for first' day'' ~,,.. allowance -of .15. guineas ;for: - second ' dav (which .■would^.nip'ljidd:;allowance.if6r-' : 'sMbnd: * Ir - S j er / etfc > , K .- C - (with him Mr. M'Lean) defendants ' and Mr ' You «S

• RIVAL - SCAFFOLD BRACKETS. Humphries co. v. butters, hale AND CO. PS re ,f rd . to tho case of tho Humphries Patent and Scaffold"' CopAtd,, veisus Butters, Hale and Co., judgment was ST by . J ustic s' Cooper yesterday; • "from ®V 01 1: fe^ain'rtlefendants: scaSnlrfin^'k 1 I D f' '. or '. e^P. os . m e'for:s^^ latent bfi i r r k<s , t3 - > ,lf »ngemont of letters patent helckby. plaintiffs, damages or an' account and the delivery up to plaintiffs or the a '' 6uc h brackets in the possession of defendants, or. -their agents. Defendants, who denied the 'alleged : infringements, objected, to tho validity of the letters patent: neld: by ,plaintiffs'on: several grounds Whi"! I:" 0 ' to 'f th -°' fthe inven-. tb« an 'v, P!lte . d ' that; the specification^did ;not^sufiiciently ; 'describe: that ifho specifications of • plaintiffs - invention - sufhpiently 'described' it.' •.•??-, siyGtuwas/suffiofent-'to'* • tWhrS the .bracket—and- that -.was the' test. . . Uto. the . combination alone ,was .the merit of the invenwon. .. It .was clear ;that'tho invention.ser.ved ,purposo; : ;'lt;.provided:a seraro rest in .a simplo manner, for a platform which could be used on the;outsido•:■ of buildings of • ' u affiled to tho build-" ng and could readily be removed, and it did In!- no apprficiaMo injury to the p.trueAl [. t .|io..'ob]ections : taken - Ky? def end-" ,ants. to the validity of plaintiff 's" patent had • question .was whether: ■ defendants had infringed tho patent..: Plain-; tilts ; patent was for; a: combination'which did npthm ? more than bring about, in a more :benofic;al ; had already been achieved by Fairlmrsts' patent Dehad not jtaken tho: esscnco'aiifl :Bubrmarron^of'plaintiffs' ■' patent, and tliey had .Hot patented and manucolourablo departure from it; 1 neil*;- ; illvcntion , wa3 . cjuito.- as, distinct: from plaintiffs -patent as -plaintiffs'' patent was from • FairhuratS'.' v-';lt cwas. ';a combinatTon bracket; which '.two.' distinct . principles; not contained.m~ plaintiff's patent, though' m. each of the -brackets'! tho same result was ; achieved.' His Honour, therefore; held' that defendants, : bracket .was not an .infringement ' ,ot plaintiffs ..patent, and ho gave judgment for ' defendants. General costs of-the action-wero allowed defendants,;: biit^not':ofr Jars of objection: to plaintiffs' patent. He allowed icosts on tho middlo scale as on' a claim for £500. but-, as coiisiderablo tirii'e was -takeni .p -the.- hearing :of' the ; objections to plaintiffs, patent,:ho .would-not.allow a second day.. . ■■ ■> 'V; Onbehalf.of plaintiffs' Mr.. Skerrett- (with 1 rw■ '-<^wk>.appeawiy,;aßkea■ that th'<i; . validity of plaintiffs',.patent :sliould. bo corti- ! ° ."/went any.further attack upon it. : . :i. • i' -- un Si. for.rtlio. defendants,: riised, no objection.'.. %'v:.. His Honour acceded to tho : requost. '