SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2000, 6 March 1914, Page 11

SUPREME COURT.

TRADE MARK ON PIG IRON Leave to proceed with an application for registration of the trade mark "Bengal" was asked for in the SupMExo Court yesterday. Mr. Justice Hosting heard the case. The Application Was iuado by the Bengal Iron and Steel Coy., under Section 64 (e) of the Patents Designs and Trade Marks Act, 11)11. Mr. P. B. Cooke appeared in slipport of the application. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey, of tho Crown Law Office, appeared for the Registrar of Patents. Grounds of the application wo-ra: (1) That, by virtue of long-continued wso, tho word "Bengal" had been rendered distinctive for the pig-ifon inamtfaefsur-, ed solely by the Bengal Iron and-Steel' Coy.; (2) that the adoption of any other trade mark would remi.lt in great loss to the applicant; (3) that the affidavits set out further grounds in support. viz., that purchasers used the name "Bengal" when applying far. the. iron, | that tho iron had obtained a "widely established reputation" throughout New Zealand, and that the brand' -sold under' tho name in New Zealand! was manufactured solely by the applicant, company, etc. After hearing argument His Honour reserved decision on the question as towhether he should let: tho amplication go forward to the Hegfi.ti'a.r of Patents.' HUTT HOTEL SALE. FORMER DECISION REVERSED. In the Supreme Court yesterday Mr. Justice Hosking allowed an appeal from a Magistrate's Court decision in a case in which the ■ appollant was Richard Quin'n, Lower Hutt, hot-elkeeper (defendant in the Court below), and respondent M. Dermit.li and Go v of Wellington, land and commission agents (plaintiffs in tho Court below). At thehearing of the appeal Mr. 1?. young appeared for tho appellant and Mr, D. M. Findlay for the respondent. In the Magistrate's- Court Demuth and Co. claimed to recover the sum of £100, commission on the sale of Qtmia's hotel, or, in the alternative, damage for breach of the agreement to give Demuth and Co. the sole right to sell the 'hotel up to Monday, September 29 last. The magistrate had hold thatDemuth and Co. ivero the agents of Quinn under a special authority to sfr-li to ; a Mr. Tucker for £2400j. and a point of the contract was ijiat the .agency was-to last till noon on Moilday, September 29. He was satisfied that Tucker was ready and to buy tho hotel on tho Saturday before the Monday set out in the agreement, and had' expressed a willingness to Demuth and Co. to do so. Thp firm actively continued to try to effect a sale aftor receipt of the telegram of ac ceptance, and would have been able tc complote, and earn the agreed eosmrission, had it not been for. the hreach of .contract of agency by the sale, by Quinn, to one Ross on'tho Saturday previous to Monday, September 29. The' Magistrate (Mr. J.,is: Evans) gave judgment for Demuth and Co. for £100, and it was from this decision that the appeal with- made. His Honour, in the c'om'so of a lengthy reserved judgment, allowed the appeal because Demuth and'Ci). -had not'roceivod any consideration to bind the agreement with Quinn. Costs were not allowed tho! latter in view; of the fact that he . had broken his word or a!« lo'wod'.it" to be 'broken." Jlr -.-I 5 - 8.. Cooke, who .'represented Mr..D. M. Eindlay when judgment was delivered, moved.for- leave to-appeal -tothe Court' of Appeal and the- motionwas allowed to stand over. BY CONSENT. DAMAGES ACTION SETTLED. By consent of the parties, Mr. Justice Hosking, yesterday entered judgment for plaintiff (for. an amount "fixed by the arbitrators) in an action for damages—Archibald Arthur Bi-xivm v. Frank Hadfield and Ralph Hadfield. ' Tho claim, was for £2827 10s. tiara* ages.for tho destruction of certain ri-as? property near Waika-nae. Hearing took place in Wellington in September, Ml 2, when a jury found in favour of' plaintiff, and it remained for the amount of damages to be Mai by arbitration.. This was done, and judgment was en* tered yesterday. - • Mr. ..A. do B. Brandon, jtin.,- appeared for the plaintiff (Drown), while Mr. E. P. Hadfield appeared for the defendants. DIVORCE CASE. AN APPLICATION FOR COSTS. Mr. Justice Hosking yesterday dealt with, an application tor costs ni the divorce case, Edmund Earl Eurness v. Blanche Louisa Eurne-ss and Leonard' Cooke ; When the case was before a jury in tho Supreme Court, recently, that body failed to find in favour of the petitioner and tho petition was accordingly dismissed. lestorday Mr. C. W, Nielsen, on behalf of the respondent, applied lor costs for his client- on the highest scale. He submitted that Mrs. tfurness had boon successful in her defcuco and was entitled to all costs. He pointed out that sufficient security for costs had already been' lodged in Court. Mr. A. H. Hindmar.sl-i asked for costs on tho- highest scale lor th<> co-respon-dent, who nad been put to.a.great deal of. trouble and expense, ami 'who had finally come out of tho iktion (counsel submitted) without a stain on his char--acter). " Mr. 11. P. O'Lcary contended that the cost 3 should be on the lowest scale. The-case, he suggested, had'run into tho second day because of the unproved allegations made by ttto respondent. In' regard to the costs of co-respondent, the latter had been brought into the action through his oivu fault, and was not entitled to anything, move than allowance on the lowest senle. Mr. O'Leary submitted that the financial position of the petitioner was n matter which had'to "be'taken into consideration. His Honour made an order .allowing! respondent. £2.3, and o gm'nesis for site" ond day. The co-respondent .was allowed £20 and 0 guineas for ihe M-oon'd day. The costs of the toV<um:-si<>:i in Australia woe fixt-d ;a ' ij aitijicas, wSOthcr with mijn:, ; . ; ;wi dij- , Imminents. The;* ;\i..oiit-».-= will hav« to be met by ii, o as , V ;ii tho-Court fee;-. . "