PHONOGRAPH RECORDS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1516, 12 August 1912, Page 4

PHONOGRAPH RECORDS.

-4 . TEE EDISON PATENT INFRINGED. (By Telegraph.—Press Association,) Christchurch, August 10, A civil action concerning the sale of phonograph records was hoard at the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Cooper, when Thomas A. Edison, Ltd., of Sydney, phonograph dealers, sought an injunction against J. Machie, of 113 Hobson Street, Auckland, phonograph record dealer, restraining him from selling in Now Zealand any records protected by plaintiffs' patent for less than prices given, in thecurrent Edison catalogue for New Zealand. The cose for the plaintiff company wis oonducted by llr. M. Myers, of Wellington, but there was no appearance of defendant. Tho history of the case was given in the statement of claim, which 6tated that plaintiffs' company was the registered proprietor in New Zealand of phonographic records known as "the Edison Ambei'ol records," and there was affixed upon the box of each of the aniberol records a statement to the effect that the record was sold upon condition that it should not be resold to or by any unauthorised dealer, or used for duplication, or that it should not be sold or offered for salo by the original or any subsequent purchaser for less than 50 cents in the United States, nor in any other country for less than the prices given in the Edison catalogue for those particular countries. On October 17 and November 8, 1011, plaintiffs forwarded to defendant copies of the current Edison catalogue, for Now Zealand. In these catalogues' the price at which Edison amberol records were permitted by the plaintiff to bo vended in New Zealand . was 2s. i!il. each. On March 6, 1012. the defendant sold two Edison amberoi reoords for 3s each, this salo being an infringement of tho plaintiffs'.patent. Tho compauy asked for nit injunction preventing a repetition of the offence. The signed ovidehco of Frederick Lawrence Thomson, of Sydney, manager of the company, was put iii. In addition to corroborating statements set forth in tho statement of claim, it stated that a letter had been forwarded to defendant' warning him that, in selling tho records at a cheap rate, he was infringing plaintiffs' ■patent. In reply to n question by his Honour, Mr. Myers stated that defendant's solicitors had been served with the papers connected with the case, and knew that it was heard that day. His Honour granted the'injunction, the d«feudnnt being ordered to pay £1 7e. costs, and disbursements.