APPEAL CASES

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2902, 14 October 1916, Page 15

APPEAL CASES

SEVERAL JUDGMENTS DELIVERED

WHOLESALE LIQUOR CASES

Yesterday morning tho Full Court in Wellington delivered _ judgment in a Napier appeal affecting the law of wholesale liquor licenses. The story of tho litigation is_ that one John 0; Bryant, who carries on a grocerv business at Napier, onoe held a wholesale license, but lost it in 1915. John P. Smith, who carries on business under tho style of JVarren, Smith,,and Co., holds a wholesale'license at Port Ahuriri, and it has been a practice of Bryant to take ordere of liquor for that firm. Some time ago a constable bought liquor in this way. through Bryant, and when a case was brought against . Bryant in the Magistrate's Court at Napier, Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., convicted Bryant of assisting Smith to sell liquor at a place where he was not licensed to sell the same.

This decision was appealed against, and one of. the grounds raised was that there was no sale, as the goods had not passed. > Their Honours all found against the and the appeal was, therefore, dismissed. As to the point about the.sale, they held that an executive contract to . sell was a sale sufficient for tho purposes of the Act. It was held,' also, that the fact of Bryant placing a signed reecipfc in the hands of the purchaser showed that ho was authorised to sell, and not merely to receive orders.

WORKER'S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. Some time ago Joseph Kayo, a la-. bourer, sustained injuries while employed by the Westport Harbour Board as a blacksmith' and tool-sharp-ener at .the board's Cape Foulwind quarry. _ Kaye claimed* £1000 damages. His case was heard before Mr. Justice Doniiistdn and a jury in the Supremo Court at Nelson. Tho jury awarded Kayo £750 damages, but Mr. C. H. Treadwell, counsel for the Harbour Board, moved that judgment should be entered for £500 only, on the ground that tho case came within tbe provisions of statute limiting damages- in certain cases to that amount. Mr. Treadwell's contentions were agreed with by the Court, and judgment was entered for £500. Mr. P. J. O'Regan, Kaye's counsel, took tho case to the Court of Appeal, and yesterday that Court stated that Kaye's appeal was upheld, and that judgment would be entered for him in the sum of £750, with costs. 1 PALMERSTON NORTH RIVER BOARD V. FROST. The Court of Appeal also gave its decision in the caso between the Palmerston North—Eairanga River Board and Thos. Alfred N. Frost, a Manawatu farmer. Frost has land which abuts on the Manawatu River. There has been an accretion of silt and shingle to Frost's land, and through this accretion the 1 River Board has been cutting a channel. Frost asserted ,that this cut would damage his property, and that to guard against the next fresh he would have to fill in the channel. .He claimed £100 damages, and asked that tho board should be prevented l'rom the cut. Mr. 'Justice Edwards heard the claim, awarded £75 damages,:, and granted the injunction sought. This decision was appealed against by the board, and the judgment of the' Judges of the Court'wore read yesterday. Chief Justice said that he,thought tho. best coruse to take was to allow the appeal,, set aside the injunction, and' enter a nonsuit. The other Judges arrived at similar conclusions.: The question of costs was then argued, and the Court decided that the board should have the same costs granted as were granted. Frost in tho Supremo Court. As to the appeal, no costs were allowed. A QUESTION OF PATENT RICHTS. ; In tne Supreme Court the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) heard an application by J. B. MacEwan and Co. to issue a writ of attachment against Joseph Hopkirk, of Hawera. MacEwan and Co. hold tho patent rights of a machine for agitating milk in the process of cheesemaking. Hopkirk is the maker of an agitator,' but MacEwan and Co. consider that Hopkirk's machine infringes their patent. Tliere lias been litigation over the machines in the recent past, and the Court of Appeal has. held that Hopkirk infringed MacEwan's patent. In tlie previous cases it was contended that the difference, if any, in the machines was merely: in the way in which tlie blades of the machine were set, and MacEwans argued that this difference was immaterial. However, the Court of _Appeal_ decided against Hopkirk, and now it is said by MacEwan and Co. that Hopkirk has made an attempt to evade the decision of the Court by setting the blades of his machine longitudinally (not alternately longitumnallv and transversely, -as is the case wilh. MacEwan's patent), but making them so easily removable that one would need to bo always present to see that they were; not altered to a transverse set. On this ground the; wiTt'o? attachment was sought. ' Sir John Findlay, K.C., and Mr. D. M. Findlay appeared for MacEwan and ' Co., and Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., and j Mt. J. C. Peacock, for Hopkirk.

Some argument was heard' in,-the morning, but after the lunoheon adjournment ETs Honour said that lie had mentioned the case to Mr. Justice Sim, wEo had told him that'he had decided a similar case on the West Coast. The case did not appear to have been reported but, Mr. Justico Sim haying given a ■ decision, the proper course respecting the presont case was to refer it to tho Full Court.

Tlie case was then adjourned till a date to .be fixed.