SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2361, 28 October 1881, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS AT NISI PRIUS. Thursday, October 27. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnstone and a Special Jury.] FRANCK V HOBBS AND GOODWIN AND C.J.C. The following evidence was taken after our going to press yesterday : John Leo Scott was next examined, and deposed that he was a mechanical engineer. Tho witness gave evidence similar in character to that of Mr Loughnan as to the difference in the two mechines. At the end of the examination of this witness a discussion took place between his Honor and the learned counsel as to tho further conduct of the case. Several suggestions wore made as to the counsel framing two or three special issues for the consideration of the jury, leaving the argument to be taken before the Court of Appeal, but nothing definite was arrived at, and at 530 p.m. tho Court adjourned until the next day at 10 15 a.m,

This Day. The sittings of the Court was resumed at 10.30 a.m. The further hearing cf this case was gone on with. Mr Harper said that counsel had agreed, subject to his Honor’s approval, to the following course, viz., that the remainder of the evidence should be taken before his Honor alone, allowing the jury to be discharged, the case being sent up to the Court of Appeal, with leave to draw inference from facts. His Honor said ho was quite willing to concur in any course which counsel thought best. Mr Harper said the proposal was this, to state a special case for the Court of Appeal, by order of the Supreme Court. Ultimately it was arranged that the evidence should be combined with the pleadings, &c., for the Court of Appeal, the jury being discharged by consent. Mr Button then called evidence.

Andrew Stenhouse deposed as to the use for some years prior to March, 1830, of gas meters in Hokitika at the Gas Company’s works. William Ambrose Goodwin, one of the defendants, deposed that the machine in Court was the joint property of George Hobbs and himself. The Canterbury Jockey Club had nothing to do with the making or construction of the machines. Witness was permitted to use his machines on the course, subject to an arrangement with the Jockey Club as to profits. The machines were used for betting on horse races. The bet was limited to £1. The machine was not worked by any one in the employ of the Jockey Club. The machines had not been used for any other purpose but betting. Witness first conceived the idea of making the machine. The idea was suggested to witness by seeing a machine belonging to Le Sueur in January, 1880. Witness saw a machine like Francks used in a gambling room in America twenty-seven years ago. Mr Harper objected to this last matter. Mr Button said he did not claim to have this recorded, it was merely to show the train of thought which led to the witness inventing the machine. Witness continued—The machine used by Le Sueur in January was, he thought, for exhibition. It professed to register units, tens and hundreds, and to give the total. Witness could not say whether the total was given simultaneously, as it was not working. In February, 1880, witness saw another machine at Wellington. This one was at work. It registered the tens and units and total in separate compartments. The grand total was registerd by two motions. He was not aware whether Hill and Poole called the machine a pari mutuel or totalisator. It was similar to that of the witness in front, having two handles. The separate compartments of units and tens were worked by one handle, and the total by another. After seeing Le Sueur’s machine he read a paragraph in an Australian paper speaking of a machine which embossed the tickets, registered units, tens and hundreds, and gave the total in one motion. The paragraph did not describe the machinery, but only gave the results. When witness went to Wellington ha interviewed Mr Lyon, the secretary of the Wellington Jockey Club, and showed him the paragraph referred to. The result of the interview was that when witness returned to Christchurch ho gave the idea to Mr Ekberg. At first witness could not work out the idea of registering the total simultaneously with the units and tens. Mr Daye, whom witness consulted, said that he could not work it out. He then saw Mr H. H. Loughnan, and told him they could get the motion for the units and tens, but was unable to get the one motion to register the total. Mr Loughnan told them that his brother was a mechanical engineer, and he would mention it to him. This was ahaut the 8th February. Witness then went to Ekberg, and he worked out the details of registering the units, tens, and totals in one motion, and his working out eventually resulted in the making of the machine in Court. Witness had that machine working at the November meeting, 1880, and prior to that in April, 1880, he saw the machine of the plaintiff working in Cathedral square. He never saw the inside of the plaintiff’s machine until he came into Court, nor had ho ever seen the plans or specifications before the action was brought. In the first machine made by the witness the action was a double one, and was so worked at the April meeting, 1880. At tho November meeting it was worked with one motion. The working by one motion was projected prior to April, but there was not time to carry it out. Cross-examined by Mr Harper—lt was about the 6th February, when witness first spoke to Ekberg about the machine. The instructions were given to Ekberg about the 9th February, but he had not time to carry it into effect, though he had thought it out. Ekberg was not with witness when Franck’s machine was exhibited. He was not aware that ho ever spoke to Ekberg on the subject of Franck’s machine after ho saw it. Witness was not sure that

he took Ekberg a picture of the machine. [ "Australian Skotcher" of July, 1879, put in.] He did not read any description of the machine in that paper, but he saw the picture of the outside. The first machine had two handles, and they were worked by one man. There was no connection between the machinery used to work the units, &c., and the total. The machine of Hill and Poole resembled the first machine of witness, and was worked on the Wellington course in February, 1880. Witness received a printed notice from Franck, but he could not identify the one. The single action idea was worked out before the notice was received, and the machine all but finished. Witness had taken the machine to Auckland, Wellington, and Dunedin, and saw a simultaneous machine there worked by electricity. This was in February, 1880. No arrangements had been entered into for the use of witness’ machine at the forthcoming November meeting. By his Honor—The total passing through one of the machines would bo about £1000 for the meeting. George Hobbs, another of the defendants, gave evidence corroborative of the previous witness. He also deposed that the fact of Mr Franck bringing his machine here had nothing to do with their procuring a single action machine.

B. P. Ekberg deposed that he was a certificated mechanical engineer. He was employed by Messrs Hobbs and Godwin to make a machine. This was on February 6th, 1880. They asked witness to make an instrument for betting purposes, to accomplish simple addition by showing a series of units, tens, and hundreds, and also a total aggregate of the component series. Witness was told that the machine must be so arranged as to show the units, &c., and the grand total in ono motion. Defendant Goodwin gave witness a model of tho working of the movement for units and tens in two pieces of wood. He left witness to work out the idea of unity of action between the recording of the units, &c , and the grand total, The result was the machine now before the Court. In arriving at the conclusion he had done with regard to tho working out of the idea, he had never seen Franck’s machine, nor any plans, drawings, or specifications relating thereto. The result of the production of unity of action was the invention of the witness. The first machine had to be used before it was completed, consequently the action had to be dual. The idea of constructing the machinery of simultaneous action was worked out, but the actual completion of it was not done. There were some parts in the machine when used for the first time which were intended to carry out the principle of simultaneous registration. The cylinders were not such as would have been left in the machine had it been constructed for the purpose of two distinct motions being required to effect registration. The whole machine was constructed with a view to ultimate unity of action. He had carefully examined the plans and specifications of the plaintiff s machine. An ordinary skilled mechanic could not from these construct a machine similar to that of the plaintiff. If they were laid before a hundred skilled mechanics they would turn out a hundred different machines.

Cross-examined by Mr Harper—The specification of the plaintiff does not show clearly what the machine is. [The witness here went into a detailed description of the specifications, and pointed out that there were numerous omissions in the drawings, so that a workman could not

tell where to put certain parts.] The drawings did not say whether somee parts were to be made in stone, iron, cork, or wood. The instrument of the plaintiff could not be made in wood. A spiral spring of wood would be a funny thing. Witness could not make a face of the machine from the drawings and specifications, which could be fitted on to the machine. [The witness was cross-examined at some length as to the mechanism of the defendants’ machine.] [Loft sitting.]