COURT OF APPEAL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 91, 26 July 1910, Page 5

COURT OF APPEAL.

THE PATENT SKYLIGHT CASE. By Telegraph. —Own Correspondent. Wellington, Lust Night. Ail Appeal Court case affecting skylight patents was he n\ to-day before the Chief Justice ( ,r Robert Stout) a/ml Judges Chapman and Cooper. The ease concern..! Jolm William Wade, ol Gisborne, Francis Fowler, 1 George Squire Fowler and 'Frederick | Stokes, of Auckland, appellants, and j Hardley and Hiardley, Ltd., of Auckland,! and Frederick Charles Griffiths, of New I Plymouth, respondents. j Mr. P. Skerrett, K.C., and Mr. E. C.. Dlomfield (of Auckland) were for the appellants, and Dr. H. D. Banuord (of Auckland) far the respondents. It was an appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Edwards. Wheal the matter came before His i Honor, 'the appellants, then plaintiffs, alleged that the defendants (the present respondents) had infringed their patent, and they sought an injunction restraining them. His Honor, with the consent of 'the parties, referred the case to arbitrators, who were of opinion that G-rif-fitihs' methods, patented as "Griffiths' Platent Skylight," in 1903, did not infringe "Wade's Improved Iron Skylight Frame," patent for which was granted in 1893. They were not able to decide the legal effect of the clause in Griffiths' patent specifications, affirming that his invention referred to an improvement in skylight frames invented by Wade. Following tliis award the case then came before the Court, upon the motion to review the finding of the arbitrators and for judgment, and a cross motion by defendants for judgment. In giving his decision, Mr. Justice Edwards said that Griffiths' skylight was an ingenious and clever contrivance, doin a different way ttuit wnrch one part of Wade's machine effected. In result, though, he was tolerably clean that plaintiffs had taught defendants how to make their machine; yet the invention defeated the former. He found that 'the method o<f water exclusion was substantially different, and lie entered judgment for defendants. Argument on this decision, and on other matters relating to two patents were proceeding when the. case was adjourned for the day.