JUDGMENTS.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11750, 26 November 1903, Page 2

JUDGMENTS.

DAILY v. LIGHTBAND. His Honour delivered judgment in the case Jolitt jteafplr Dudy, ttgofcst Charlerf David lighthftnd sod Other*, which waj an action for on aJkg«d breach of a. patent for a, tton-pUßctamble lifting far pnwaiatio robber tyres, aad covering for air ttibea fo* cycles, motor cars, war carriage*, and other vbeet ccHveyonese. His Honcw eaid the firefc pomt to be contidered noa, did th« specification fuily, dearly and uaa&bign' ox&f the oatur* of Ui* invention; and the mean* of-cewying it iit* *ffccti Att*P citing Authorities,' his tifunoW said that the specification was to be Bhcb that a person of ordinary teteHig«nce, conver* sent with tli* snbjeet n»att»r, wonld under* etiuid it, aad. be able <U> act epea Ut. The eubjecf mett«r of the patent wa4 the ltniag-fof pneomatic robber tyree on bicydee wwi otlwr treoieke. The lining Wμ d«crib*d ia the claim *s being nude from "dwmically pwj»red bide*." If wat •dmittwl JhAt w ch«ttibiily hWee 4 w» "a**.-* t«diaieel or trad* Ascription of any erticlts. It vu dto admitted that in its widest eeaw all tanned bide* were "ebetnicsUy It mw, however, aaid Qua ia the leather trade, a distiaetioa vu drawn betwetn and

■ mineral tannine, andthat-tbelatter only ttottia be uaderetood : pared." The mofet,' he thought, tliat could be concluded from t)ii evidence would' Lβ I ihat ait 6kperi«nce4 t*nner or leather pierchant reoeivifig tin order in terms of tije epeciflcalion, would probably send "chromo leather?" in ta««-«r, He tliought anybne the etnim would come to no other concWsion than that the "chemically prepared artirrtat hides' , of tlie claiining cluUSe were hides prepared by the process tnen- 1 tioned in tht qweiflwtfion*. U the specification as a whole- -waa to be read as identifying "chtniically prepared Attiffial hides" ns hides propwed by the nwens d«ccribed In the it was admittedly bad, because -no qnantitiee were mentioned, and witlltiflt fetich quantities, no one could, without elaborate experiment, arrive at the proper method, if, indeed, in juiy. combination the process .would be effective. .Tlio plaintiff copied the process from aa. encyclopedia omitting the qaaatities. £v*ir il Uw procea* had contained the quantities, and was, in fact, effecti**, bfefc wa* c method ol*e*dy*known to the trade, the "specification would, he theughVbt «j»6 to objection.' r lft the prfsent o*e, it might oe laid that the publia were, by the Bpevificaliuu," fed -to think that the natet-ial neoesoiuy cottld be ob taihed only .byno Mixuita process- of tanninj, woeredA it mil aU ordinary kather, known and procurable from the- trade a« "chrwM* l«tt»r." If, on the other hand, the patentee iflt«lded, and the specification suggested that he inteaded, to oWm the application to Hnhig tub«B Of the leathef lα*** t* *kf totAa ** "AwtiM lAl&er, , ' Iμ thought tiui tU claim vtM t*tegtom t and io .4?c^SfiL.the. public,, both as not •offioiectly dewcibine his intention, and as leatioa & M W dtmbtiul trhethef he' did not claim oaly the uu of leather pwipartrt according to hi* o*n fottAb. He wantot •ttfefiwt with tb* preot of prior user, and had coctidefable doubt wbjtbef the invention bad any merit*, for the experiment) efthe <kf«d«nt bi placing it on the market did not m«q to hare b«a successful or Hβ cetild not think it probable that to cenanon iaA obviotka an expedient at th» rut of leather for lining tube* would not have b*sa coneiderfd w tested, ffi did not, kaweret, expreca utjr.eonclvaiem ea the poiat. Judg-

iment \rould be for the' defendant*. Mr Stringer appeared for thr plaintiff; and Mr Ru»se)l for the defencbatt. •' PITCAITHLY AXD CO. v. THACKEB, Judgment was also delivered ie tbe appeal ea.se. I?. Pitcaithly and O>, agaiaet John Robert Th acker. Thocktr, who lives at, Okain'a Bay, proposed to niake the journey from Lyttelton To the Bay in one of the appellant's boats. The captain, according to instructions, informed him that he -would be charged a fare of £1 instead of the customary fis. When the fares were being collected, Thacker refused to pay the £1, and he wan accordingly taken back to Lyttelton. The Stipendiary Magistrate had held that the appellants were common carrier* of passengers, and were compelled to take the respondent at the usual fare, and he granted him damages to the. extent of £86. .Against this decision Pitcnithly and Co. appealed. His Honour ( said it was singuuw that the que»ion mainly aj-gued in the case, whether a. carrier by sea of p«««?n----g<?n» was bound to rewire and carry any person who was wUling to contract with them, if there was room ou board, and the-passenger was.a prcpor person to he carried, seemed to be treated as undecided After discussing .the English law bearing upon the subject, his Honour said, that in America it had always been held' that, the obligation of pajeengep carriers i.n land was that ckimed by the plaintiff in the action, the subject of the appeal. Those authorities* were not binding ou English I Courts, but no oue could doubt the givat • weight of the authority of Mr Justice Story , on Mich a subject. It did not follow from holding'that a carrier of passengers was a common carrier by the common law that he lwd all the obligation* of a common carrier of goode. It was clear, for example, that he wae not. an insurer of his passengers' safety. There was, however, no reason why, in the case of carriage of passengers for hire by common carriers at common law, the obligation, as .to carrying all fit paesengew who might offer, and for whom there was accommodation, should not attach. The ground* for the obligation were stated by Story. If, therefore ifc were necessary for him to decide the point, he should adopt the statement of the law by Mr Justice Story, and hold that, both on principle and authority, the appellants, as commWri camera, w«re bound to receive the respondent 83 a paseenger on board their steamer on payment of the usual fare. H© did not, however, think it wae necessary to decide the ca?e on any abstract qutation as to the common law of liability of carriers. The appellants advertised that they toft-a regular eteamer from Lytteltoii to port? on Banks Peninsula ut definite dutes and hours. No fur* was mentioned, bttt a uniform'te* had always been charged. That amounted to a promise by the appellant* togthe public that they would be carried by the •teanunr *fc the stated tiitMe, atid.Mt the current Taro. The respondent having in. response to. and reliance ou the offer and promiee, gone on board the eteamer, end having started on the voyage, and being ready and witling to pay the current fare in {lie usual way on board the steamer on request, a contract arose between him and the applicants. The action of the appellants in requiring from, tlie respondent, on grounds .personal between .them and the respondent fotfr times the usual and recognised fare, and, on his refusal, putting back and compelling him to l*aTe the steamer, was, in hl» dpanidn, a breach of the contract, entitling the respondent to damages. No question arose, on the appeal, as to the amount or basis of tJie damagee awarded. Tb» appeal would be dismissed, with £10 10s cost*. Mr Harper appeared for the appellants, and Mr Donnelly for the respondent. Leave was given to appeal to the Gourt of Appeal. ' -

Adelaide Fisher applied for the diwolntion of her marriage with her hutband, Donald Fisher, upon the ground of the latter's desertion. Mr Hoban apptwed for the petitioner, but. there wa» m> appearwo* of ib» -x»spondent. His Honour took time to consider thi point oa to whether » eepaxeted. votnan could claim a divorce oil the ground of detection, for the reaioa that her hutband had failed to keep up hie payment! trader J the separation de«d, • liOniea Crocker, for', whom Mr Hairfflaa appeared, obtained a decree nisi dissolving her marriage vtith her husband, John Crocker, upon the ground of desertion.