PALMERSTON DAY BY DAY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 796, 20 April 1910, Page 7

PALMERSTON DAY BY DAY.

. THE HIGH SCHOOL FIRE. , (By TeleeraDh.-rSpecial OorresDondent.) .'. , ' Palrnerston North, April 19. ( The mppthly meeting pf the High School Board of Governors was held last -evenjpg. 'Present: Messrs. W. H.'Collingwpod (chairman), J. L. Barnicoat, W. Rutherfurd, T. R.'Hodder; W. Park, and G, Hir§oh. The rector (Mr. J. Fi. Vernon) reported jn' eppnection with the burning pf the. High School' that the science and copkery rooms, and the gymnasium had been saved, and nearly the whole of the school records hod been recovered, the firs brigade baying,paid particular, attention to saving the, pfflce. The Games Club had, lost material to the value of about and, of the library, over 200 volumes had also been lost: The school challenge, cup, value .£lO, had been recovered intact. The rector was authorised to-engage assistance to rewrite the school recprds, and the Grpund Committee- was authorised to secure a football ground for the boys, wh*n their own ground was tao wet tb play on, and if was left to the same committee to provide shelter-sheds at the Technical School for' housing bicycles, etc:

Mr, H. C. Smith, railway statiojtimaster here, accompanied by Mrs.' Smith, has gene on a long holiday, which will be -.spent in both islands. '■'

The Hon. Dr. Findlay will give a lecture here on ■ Thursday evening, under the auspices of'the Manawatu Philosophical Society.

The Amateur Boxing Club held its first meeting lost night, when between.7o and :SO members W e re present, and,some;good' practice was indulged in..:. Alxiut 60 members are. now, financialsHind the-clnb pro-' mises to flourish,, Instruction in boxing wil} be given on three nights each week. Messrs. Watchorn,.,Shields, and .Havill, three .weW<-kiji>wii. local. amaipurS,- havebeen appointed instructors..

At tho Magistrate's Court to-day, Mr. A.'D..Thomson gavo judgment in the case- of Passey and Pearce, in which plaintiff claimed jBU or the return of two bullocks. The case was the outcome of a charge brought'so-me-time ago'by Passey-against Pearce for alleged" cattle stealing. " The magistrate, in giving judg-. stated there was.no doubt that the belonged to Pacsey, and found accordingly. ; '■''~-.''

.Mr. A. E. Whitehead, a well-known resident of Palmerston, left to-day on a trjp'.'to BritainV'The .employees .of the firm, of Whiteliead. Bros., presented Mr. Whitehead with a valuable travelling bag and a silver-mounted, umbrella as a mark of""esteem. Mr. Whitebead will be accompanied by his nnole, Mr. Caleb Whitehead, alpp an old resident of this tpwrj. •:■ • .: i- ■ ■ -.. '

Mr. Justice Sim presided over a sitting of the Supreme Court to-day, when Walter Sejfert proceeded' against . Adam Burges-for an alleged infringement / of plaintiff's flax washer righls. (The claim was to the effect that plaintiff was the patentee and- registered owner of an improved apparatus ; for treatment of flax and -like fibres; that, after patenting same, he-communicated the invention to the defendant, Adam Burgee, a macninery mauufacturer, with a view to enabling him to ■ ooinplcto tho machines for. plaintiff; and that defendant Burges constructed certain: maohincs; that, taking advantage of the information so coniniunicated, defendant 1 Burses at various times had constructed 'other ' machines upon the lines of plaintiff's patent. Plaintiff, therefore, ofaimed an injunction restraining defendant .from manufacturing pr selling such apparatus, delivery or destruction "''-' articles in possession pf defendant constructed in infringement pf . plaintiff's "~ patent l , 'ami damages. For the defence it was admitted .' that Louis, Seifert had ordered metal drums from defendant, but it was contended, that Hie orders were given in the ordinary course of business without 1 any disclosure by Louis Seifert of the nature of plaintiff's invention, and without any confidence being reposed in or accepted.by defendant. It was denied tbat any machinery was constructed on th« lines of plointlff'slnvcntion, but it was admitted, that two machines were constructed by defendant for Te Mukauui, Ltd., though in this respect it was denied that such machines were constructed pn the lines of plaintiff's invention, or were infringements.' It was further planned that plaintiff's patent was invalid, because it was not new, and was purely a combination of well-known contrivances in common use. A considerable am ou nt of evidence was taken, and the casp 'will be continued tomorrow.'