LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1681, 22 February 1913, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. (Before Hla Honour Mr. Justice Chapman) DAMAGES GIVEN AS NIL. IN PATENT CASE. < ... ' MILKING MACHINE BUSINESS. A verdict in favour of defendants was returned in tho Supremo Court yesterday in a claim for damages brought on'account of alleged negligence in connection with an application for letters patent in Melbourne. Tho hearing commenced on Thursday beforo Mr. Justice Chapman and a special jury of twelve, of whom Mr. Geo. Shirtclilfe had been chosen foreman. • Tho plaintiff was Frederick John Northcott, manufacturers' agent, ,of Auckland. The defendants were Henry Hughes, Ltd., Patent agents, carrying on business in .Wellington and elsewhere in the Dominion. i Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for Northcott, and Mr. T. Young for Hughes, Ltd. Particulars of the claim and the defence were published in yesterday's issue. The application, over which tho action originated, was for patent rights in the Commonwealth for improvements in milkreceiving cans for' milking machines. Northcott was the owner of the invention and had instructed Henry Hughes, Ltd.,. to patent tho contrivance in New Zealand and tho Commonwealth. ■ On - Thursday Mr. Blair called several witnesses in support of the plaintiff's case, and then put in certain of the interrogatories. ' ' Evidence taken on commission in Melbourne was next read to tho jury by the ■Registrar. ... Mr. Young, before opening for the dofence, mentioned five groufids on which he would ask for nonsuit, and his Honour reserved' leave to counsel to ' argue these later on. < ' Tho evidence was completed shortly before noon yesterday and addresses of counsel and his Honour's summing up occupied tho Court'until twenty minutes to 3 o clock. V . v ■ '■ Just a'ftcr i p.m. the jury agreed to answer the questions submitted to them in the following manner:— 1. Wcro the defendants specially instruct- ' to proceed under the International .Convention ?—"No." 2. Was it left, to them to exorcise their : judgment?—" Yes." S. Did they exercise their judgment negligently -No (majority verdict). there, was; any 'negligence on- the ' • t l H4 2fe «<<ants, did tho plaintiff thereby suffer any damage in consequence—No.". ' ... . 5. Would tho details of tho invention published. in. the abstract ,in the 'New Zealand Gazette of Juno 1, 1911, if seen .by skilled ,workmen well versed m „J . milking machine business be sufficient to. enable them to understand the invention and construct tho ' machine?—" No." 6. At what amount, -if any, do you assess tho. damages?—" Nil." j His Honour' gayq, judgment /for de.fendants;accordingly,, with costs as on aclaim for .'Defendants were alsoallowed certificate -for. second day, ,costs of special jury, costs of cominission'for evidence,and .interlocutory, cost's.': ...I