COURT OF APPEAL.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1569, 12 October 1912, Page 14

COURT OF APPEAL.

THE FASCINA CO. MACHINES. RECENT DECISION.

NOW APPEALED AGAINST. An appeal against a decision of the Chief Justice (Kir Robert Stout) in dismissing a motion for nonsuit in a claim for damages occupied the attention of the Court of Appeal yesterday. The Bench was occupied by Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justico Denniston, Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justice Cooper, and Mr. Justice Chnpman. Tho appellants were JFraser Kninsay (New Zealand), Ltd., general agents, 'Wellington, and the respondent was William de Renzy, agent, Palmerston North. Sir John I'indlay, K.C., with Mr. T. Young, appeared tor the appellants. Mr. A. AV. Blair, with Mr. G. H. Fell, appeared for the respondent. Back Pages of the Case. The case involved ft heavy claim for damages for alleged breach of agreement in respect of the New Zealand rights of

a patent aerated water manufacturing machine, known ns the Billows Patent Aerating Mncbind. It canio before the Court in Juno last, when it appeared that in the month of January, 1!)11, the Fasoina Manufacturing Company, of Melbourne (proprietors of the pate.nt rights of the Billows Patent Aerating Machines), appointed'Fraser Ramsuy (New Zealand), Ltd., agents in New Zealand and Fiji for the saleiof the machines. On or about October 25, 1911, de Eenzy entered into an agreement with Fraser Eainsay, by which they appointed him sole agent in New Zealand and Fiji for the sale of the machines for one year, the agreement to be renewed 'for another five years on certain conditions. Subsequently tho Fascine Manufacturing Company, of Melbourne, refused to recognise the agreement with do Eenzy, and refused also to supply him with machines. Further they threatened action against him to restrain him from dealing with such machines in New Zealand. As a result of this, de Eenzy. brought an action against Fraser Ramsay, claiming J;9DSO damages for alleged loss of profit on the sale of the machines for six years. There was a second action— Spooner v. de Eenzy—depending on the main action and heard at the same time. A special jury Df twelve was empanelled to hear the case, and after a lengthy hearing de Rerizy was awarded .£7OO damages and Spooner .£2OO damages. The following' nonsuit points, which had been raised by Sir John Findlay for the defence, were reserved for argument: 1. , That Clause 12 of the agreement (stating that the agreement with de Eenzy was upon tho same terms and conditions as the agreement between the Fascina Co. and Fraser Ramsay) made the existence of do Renzy's agreement dependent upon the existence of the agreement with

the Fascina Co. 2. That there was nothing in the agreement binding Fraser Ramsay to continue the Fascina agreement, and

that if they lost the agency, or gave it up, de Renzy had no right of action. 3. That under the agreement there was no obligation oh tho part of Fraser Ramsay (a) to supply machines and goods at all,' or (b) to supply them for any fixed term. The Present Position. On August 7, theso nonsuit points were argued before tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), who subsequently dismissed the motion for nonsuit. It was from this decision that Fraser Ramsay now appealed, on the ground that it was erroneous in law.

Argument proceeded throughout the day, and had not concluded at 4.30 p.m., when the Court adjourned until 10.30 a.m. on Monday.