SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume XXXVI, Issue 5034, 26 October 1881, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. TC-SDAV, OCTOBER. 25. Before hia Honor Mr Justice Johnston and a Special Jury. J The Court re-opened at 10 a.m. _____TOX V HOBBS _S_ GOODWIN. In this case Seigfried Franok was plaintiff, md G-. G. Stead, George Hobbs, and Wm. -oodwin, defendants. The declaration of the plaintiff alleged that ie had been granted letters patent for a | lnmerioal register for the period of fourteen rears within the colony of Victoria and its lepeudenoies. The plaintiff also claimed that ie was the inventor of the machine for which he patent had been granted. They were _iven to him for an invention improving the process of registering numerically, to be known as the totalisator. [The patent granted to the plaintiff on August 2-th, 1878, for the colony of Victoria and its dependencies was read by Mr Harper,] By letters of registration under the hand of Sir Hercules Robinson, Governor of New Zealand, dated _th March, 1880, the plaintiff _ 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 daring the said term of fourteen years, to the great loss and damage of the plaintiff. The declaration also farther alleged that the defendants had been requested on divers times to abstain from so doing, bnt had failed to comply with the tame. Under the Aot 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, rhe plaintiff alleged that on the 18th and 19th if April, and the Bth, 11th, and 12th of November, and on certain other days, on the race-course at Christahurch. the defendants used and worked the invention, and also made _nd manufactured machines which were an\ infringement of the patent of the plaintiff and intended to counterfeit the maohine invented by the plaintiff. The defendants' pleas were ss follows, viz.:—Denial of all the material allegations; that the invention was not new; that the maohine was not a manufacture for which letters patent by law should have been panted ; 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 were granted did not truly .escribe the invention; that the machine is an instrument for gaming by facilitating betting upon horse races, and that it was registered for that purpose; that the letters patent had been prooored by fraud and misrepresentation, and that the invention, which, was described aa being able to be used for delivery of merchandise, and dig-barge 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; that maohines for registering progressive numbers on separate dials were in use in Ohristohoroh prior to the date of granting the 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 defendants. Mr J. B. Parker was chosen foreman of the special jury. Mr Harper having read the declaration of the plaintiff, and the pleas, proceeded to open his case to the jury at great 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 the simultaneous action of the levers altering the units and the total by one movement, whioh was his patent. The following evidenoe was then taken: — Frederick Henry Digby deposed, that he was the seoretary of tbe Canterbury Baring Club. In 1880 witness reoeived several letters from Mr Franck. One of these letters contained notice of registration oi letters patent, and warning persons from infringing the same. It was dated 15th March, 1880. Witness also received the circul--produced describing the method of working the totalisator. here identified several documents as having been received from Mr Seigfried Franek.] Witness knew the defendants Hobba and Good win. They bad a variety of employments, such as bill .ticking, bell ringing, &c. He had not seen Franck _ maohine prior to its arrival here, but in France he had seen a similar maohine called the Pari ___.«_-. The machine was shown to witness before the letters of regfetration were taken out. Witness had seen machines for a ; similar purpose in Wellington and Dunedin. One was called a Pari Mutuel, and the other a totalisator. Externally, they resembled the machine now in Court. Plaintiff interviewed the Jockey Oinb on the subject of the use of this _ota_sator, in the course of which he described his machine. Witness did not remember any reference to Hobbs and Goodwin's machine, though it nugbt have been made. The machine now inCeurt was used by Hobbs and Goodwin on the race coma., both inside and outside the paddock. It was used under the auspices of the _lub,who shared the profit! with Hobba and Goodwin. The latter used the same machine | at the Spring Meeting in November. The one now in Court was used first in March, 1880. Witness never heard any complaint as to the working of the first machine made by Hobbs and Goodwin. Ih*^* 6 ' were not present at the time when Franck exhibited his machine in C-thedral tqrxtae. In cr_M--xa_inatia_, by Mr Joynt, the witness said that complaints had been m*~to him of the working of Franck - n«to» at Don-din by the secretary of the Dunedin Jockey Club. Plaint-- had worked hi* machine at Invercargill, hut was not a snocets there as he was not _-**>• nis-d vesy Kher_lly. _______ did ___ the public the impression flaafc be underj-OO-__bu_i_--s. Plain--- in 1879 offered him a thirty-se-ond share, but witness wooH ha_j had to pay £1-5 for it. WitwM de-lined the flattering offer. . Lows Nevflk, mechank-l enpneejr, w the Mt-iee of the Lyttritea Harbor posed to having in-poeted mteznt-iy fcsa

, machinal before the Court. Witness ooxn- [ pared the specification of plaintiff's maohine. , A competent mechanic could, from a drawing, ; construct one. _ Witness prooeeded to demon- , strate practically how the machine of the t 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 waa 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 as set out in the specification. The witness was then examined at length as to the _ construction of Messrs Hobbs and Goodwin's I machine. He 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 maohine. 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 i machine which was not a mechanical equivalent for pieces of maohinery used for the same purpose in the other machine. He saw no different meohanical principle or different application of general mechanical principles in the defendants' maohine. There was great difference in the details, but the principles were equivalent one with the other. Prom the photograph produced of Franck's machine witness did not think that an ordinary mechanic could construct a maohine similar, but a highly skilled engineer might think it out. The laiter might not hit upon exactly the same idea, but he might possibly. The plaintiff's machine might coat more, beoause it was more beautifully finished. Cross-examined by Mr Button, witness should not think that the plaintiff's machine was made in the oolony. The machine produced [an American bell-punoh maohine]. This maohine recorded np to one short of 10,000. Mr Bntton then called tbe attention of the witness to a ticket-marker, and asked what the difference was between that and Mr Franck's pawl and ratchet arrangement for registering his units. The witness said there was no difference. Cross-examination continued There was no meohanical detail that was new in either maohine. The pawl and ratchet motion for converting reciprocal motion into rotary motion was very old, far older than the witness. Mr Bntton —Yes, and older than your great grandmother. The witness was then subjected to a severe cross-examination by Mr Button as to the meohanism 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.