SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2360, 26 October 1881, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. This Day. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston and a Special Jury.] PE AN OK Y HOBBS AND GOODWIN AND C.J.O. In this case Soigfried Franck was plaintiff, and G. Q. Stead, George Hobbs, and Wm. Goodwin, defendants. The following evidence was taken after our going to press yesterday : Louis Neville, mechanical engineer, in the service of the Lyttelton Harbor Board, de. posed to having inspected internally both machines before the Court. Witness compared the specification of plaintiff’s machine. A competent mechanic could, from a drawing, construct one. [Witness proceeded to demonstrate practically how the machine of the plaintiff worked, and also described the mechanism]. He also identified the machine In detail with the drawing and specification of the patentee. He considered that the essential character of this machine was the registering of the units or tens or hundreds on the integral scores simultaneously with the total. He also described other distinctive features of the machine m set out in the specification. The

witness was then examined at length as to the construction of Messrs Hobbs and Goodwin’s

machine. Ho pointed out the different respects in which it resembled the totalisator of the plaintiff. The object of the interior mechanism of the two machines was the same, The witness was asked whether a portion of Messrs Hobbs and Goodwin’s machine was a mechanical equivalent to certain portions of the plaintiff’s machine. Mr Button objected to the question, on the ground that as it was attempted to prove a similarity of combination the doctrine of mechanical equivalents could not apply. The doctrine of colorable imitation might. Examination continued—lt was difficult to say what there was not in defendant’s machine which was not a mechanical equivalent for pieces of machinery used for the same purpose in the other machine. Ho saw no different mechanical principle or different application of general mechanical principles in the defendants’ machine. There was great difference in the details, but the principles were equivalent one with the other, From the photograph produced of Franck’s machine witness did not think that an ordinary mechanic could construct a machine similar, but a highly skilled engineer might think it out. The latter might not hit upon exactly the same idea, but he might possibly. The plaintiff’s machine might cost more, because it was more beautifully finished. Cross-examined by Mr Button, witness should not think that the plaintiff’s machine was made in the colony. The machine produced fan American bell-punch machine]. This machine recorded up to one short of 10,000. Mr Button then called the attention of the witness to a ticket-marker, and asked what the difference was between that and Mr Franck’s pawl] andfratchet arrangement for registering his units.

The witness said there was no difference. Cross-examination continued. There was no mechanical detail that was new in either machine. The pawl and ratchet motion for converting reciprocal motion into rotary motion was very old, far older than tho witness.

Mr Button—Yes, and older than your great grandmother. The witness was then subjected to a severe cross-examination by Mr Button as to tho mechanism of the two machines, lasting some hours.

Mr Joynt also cross-examined the witness at some length, and Mr Harper also reexamined.

At 4.50 p.m. the Court adjourned until 10.15 a.m. to-day. The sitting was resumed at 10.15 a.m. The hearing of this case was resumed. John Anderson, junior, called by Mr Harper, deposed that ha was a mechanioal engineer. The witness then described tho experience he had had in England and here. He could not see any difference in the principle of working the two machines, viz , that of tho plaintiff and the defendants. The witness was examined at some length as to the working of the machine of the defendants, and also wont through a series of experiments with a view of demonstrating tho disconnecting apparatus, but was not quite successful in discovering it. After some further examination on the point of the mechanism of the two machines, Mr Harper said that to shorten the case he would admit that the introduction in the defendants’ machine of the toothed discs was not an infringement of the plaintiff’s patentThe foreman of the jury stated that ho might say the jury were perfectly conversant with the working of the two machines. Examination continued—There was no difference in the result arrived at by the two machines, but the mechanism was different. He had seen Hobbs and Goodwin’s machine, but had never worked it himself.

Mr Harper here read tho speoification of Mr Franck’s machine.

The witness said that from the drawings an ordinary skilful mechanic could construct a machine similar to it.

Andrew Boss Kirk, examined by Mr Holmes, deposed to being a mechanical and practical engineer. He had had large experience in mechanical matters. The witness was examined at some length with regard to the mechanism, going principally over the same ground as the other experts examined. The principle of the machines were different, though they arrived at the same result. Ho believed that an ordinary expert person, after seeing the plaintiffs’ machine, could arrive at the same result, though with a different combination of machinery. The motion in the plaintiff’s machine was obtained by connection with certain bars and levers. It could as well be got by wheels. From an inspection of the plans of the plaintiff’s machine witness was of opinion that an ordinarily skilled mechanic could make a machine from them.

Cross-examined by Mr Button The vertical spindle is the commonest connection of two pieces of machinery. The connection used in the machine of the defendant was a vertical spindle. Mr Harper said ho was prepared to admit this. Cross-examination continued —A rod not intended to move would be a vortical rod. There was no vertical revolving spindle in the plaintiff’s machine. There were three in the defendants machine, partly revolving, for the purpose of registration. The partial revolution of the spindle acted on the cylinders. In the plaintiff’s machine the bars moved up and down to affect pawls and ratchet wheels. A travelling pawl moving over a ratchet wheel would convert reciprocal motion into rotary The use of the pawls ond raohet wheels in the plaintiff’s machine were for the moving of the numbers on the dials. The witness was crossexamined at some length by Mr Button, Siegfried Franck, the plaintiff, deposed that he was naturalized in Australia, and had been a merchant in Sydney for fifteen years. He had been Consul for Germany, He had also gone to Europe as the Immigration Agent for New South Wales, Whilst in Europe he saw the totaliaator, which he patented in Victoria and New South Wales. Witness purchased it from the original inventor in Berlin. The instrument was in use all over the continent for checking hotel receipts, receipt and delivery of Government stores, checking theatre receipts, to keep correct account of the discharge and lading of ships, and other purposes. Witness had seen it in use on omnibuses and on racecourses much the same as had been tried to be imitated here, but they had not done it yet. In 1878 he patented the machine both in Victoria and New South Wales. In August, 1878, ho used the machine for scoring a cricket match. This was one of the purposes ho had in view when he brought the machine out. For this reason he had fifteen compartments made. The machine was used for recording the laps of a walking match, and for racing on January 18th, 1879, and in April of the same year. This was after it was patented. Witness never saw a machine like his in Australia when he first came out, nor one like the machine of the defendants’. Witness wrote to the Canterbury Jockey Club prior to coming to New Zealand. He arrived in New Zealand, at Wellington, on the 25th February, 1880. Before coming to Christchurch he took out letters of registration. After this was done the witness saw imitation total!sators at work at Wanganui, They wore of different stylos. He took out his letters of registration on 4th March, 1880, and he saw the imitations at work on the course at Wanganui on the 10th March. The Jockey Club sold the right of using those machines to Messrs Meyer. They were very similar to the first machine made by Hobbs and Goodwin in Christchurch. There were two distinct and separate motions to record the units and the totals. On reaching Christchurch witness saw some of the members of the Jockey Club. [The witness here detailed what had taken place at the interview, where ho alleged ho warned the 0.J.0. not to grant permission to totalisators in infringement of hie patent.] [Left sitting.]