SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2359, 25 October 1881, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. This Day. [Before hi* Honor Mr Justice Johnston and a Special Jury,] The Court re-opened at 10 a.m. PEANOK V HOBBS AND GOODWIN. _ In this case Seigfried Franck was plaintiff, and G. G. Stoid, George Hobbs, and ffm. Goodwin, defendants. The declaration of the plaintiff alleged that he had been granted letters patent for a numerical register for the period of fourteen years within the colony of Victoria and its dependencies. The plaintiff also claimed that he was the inventor of the machine for which the patent had been granted. They were given to him for an invention improving the arocess of registering numerically, to be mown as the totalisator. [The patent granted to the plaintiff oa August 24th, 1878, tor the colony of Victoria and its dependencies was read by Mr Harper, j By letters of registration under the hand of Sir Hercules Robinson, Governor of New Zealand, dated 4th March, 1880, the plaintiff’s patent was extended to New Zealand, and the declaration alleged that the defendants, knowing the premises and the existence of the letters patent and letters of registration, had infringed the same at divers times during the said term of fourteen years, to the great less and damage of the plaintiff. The declaration also further alleged that the defendants had been requested on divers times to abstain from so doing, but had failed to comply with the same Under the Act of 1870 the plaintiff was obliged to give particulars of the specific breaches and the defendants notice of their objections to the letters patent, so that the case might be confined to certain limits. The plaintiff alleged that on the 18th and 19th of April, and the Bth, 11th, and 12th of November, and on certain other days, on the race-course at Christchurch, the defendants used and worked the invention, and also made and manufactured machines which were an infringement of the patent of the plaintiff and intended to counterfeit the machine invented by the plaintiff. Tho defendants’ pleas were as follows, viz. :—Denial of all the material allegations ; that the invention was not new ; that the machine was not a manufacture for which letters patent by law should have been granted ; that it is not an invention which is useful to the public or for the public benefit or good; that the specification upon which the letters patent wore granted did not truly describe the invention ; that the machine is an instrument for gaming by facilitating betting upon horse races, and that it was registered lor that purpose ; that the letters patent had been procured by fraud and misrepresentation, and that the invention whioh was described as being able to be used for delivery of merchandise, discharge of cargoes, was, in truth and fact, not so, only being intended for gaming purposes ; that the machines made by the defendants were not intended to, nor did not, in fact, resemble the machine of the plaintiff whioh had been patented, nor was it intended to counterfeit, the same being entirely different j that machines for registering progressive numbers on separate dials were in use in Christchurch prior to the date of granting tho registration letters. The plaintiff sought to have an injunction granted by the Court to restrain the defendants and others from using machines similar to his as patented by him. Mr Geo. Harper, with him Mr Holmes, appeared for the plaintiff. Mr Joynt, with him Mr Button, for the desendants.

Mr J. B. Parker was chosen foreman of tho special jury. Mr Harper having read the declaration of the plaintiff, and the pleas, proceeded to open his case to the jury at groat length, reviewing the pleas of the defendant, and generally giving a resume of the case, pointing out that what the plaintiff claimed was, that there had been an infringement of tho simultaneous action of the levers altering the units and the total by one movement, whioh was his patent. The following evidence was then taken - Frederick Henry Digby deposed, that he was tho secretary of the Canterbury Racing Club. In 1880 witness received several letters from Mr Franck. One of these letters contained notice of registration of letters patent, and warning persons from infringing the same. It was dated 15th March, 1880. Witness also received the circular produced describing the method of working the totalisator. [Witness here identified several documents as having been received from Mr Seigfreid Franck.] Witness knew the defendants Hobbs and Goodwin. They had a variety of employments such as bill sticking, bell ringing, &o. He had not seen Franck’s machine prior to its arrival here, but in Franco he had seen a similar machine called the Pari Mutual. The machine was shown to witness before the letters of registration were taken out. Witness had seen machines for a similar purpose in Wellington and Dunedin. One was called a Pari Mutuel, and the other totalisator. Externally, they resembled tho machine now in Court. Plaintiff interviewed tho Jockey Club on the subject of the use of this totalisator, in the course of which he described his machine. Wittnea did not remember any reference to Hobbs and Goodwin’s machine, though it might have been made. The machine now in Court was used by Hobbs and Goodwin on the race course, both inside and outside the paddock. It was used under the auspices of the club,who shared the profits with Hobbs and Goodwin. The latter used tho same meohine at the Spring Meeting in November. The one now in Court was used first in March, 1880. Witness never heard any complaint as to tho working of the first machine made by Hobbs and Goodwin. The latter wore not present at the time when Franck exhibited his machine in Cathedral square. In cross-examination, by Mr Joynt, the witness said that complaints had been made to him of the working of Franck’s machine at Dunedin by tho secretary of the Dunedin Jockey Club. Plaintiff had worked his machine at Invercargill, but was not a success there as he was not patronised very liberally. Plaintiff did not give the public the impression that he understood his business. Plaintiff in 1879 offered him a thirty-second share, but witness would have had to pay £135 for it. Witness declined the flattering offer. [Lett sitting.]