RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2749, 8 December 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tins Day. (Before A, C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. Dr Crawford applied through Mr Edward Cook for a re-hearing of the case of Waterworks v. Crawford, on the ground of surprise. The notice of trial having been served three days before the date of hearing, the application was refused. Mathcson Brothers v, Corcoran, was further adjourned waiting evidence from Auckland, Baxter v. —L2, Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount with costs. Reid v. Hamhleton.—His Worship gave judgment as follows : —ln this case, after giving the evidence every consideration, I can come to no other conclusion than that the defendant has committed no infringement of the patent rights of Nicholson. It appears to me by the testimony of five practical engineers that there is such a difference between the reaping machine of Hamhleton and that of Nicholson—especially as regards the raising or lowering of the finger bar, which is considered by them a very important part in any reaping machine— as to warrant the belief that the defendant’s invention is not—in the language of ViceChancellor Wood, in the case of Curtis and others v. Platt —a mere colorable evasion of Nicholson’s invention, |nor an infringement of bis patent, In fact they all agree in the statement —“I would not call Nicholson’s and Hambleton’s the same patent—there is a marked 'difference between the two machines.” Under these circumstances, lam of opinion that the defence of “no consideration ” set up to the Bill by the defendant is good, and the plaintiff is therefore not entitled to recover. Judgment for defendant.