SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 657, 6 November 1909, Page 14

SUPREME COURT.

0 OMISSION IN A LAWYER'S OFFICE. M, a sitting 'of, tho Supreme Court In Banco on Wednesday, their Honours Justices Edwards, Cooper, and Chapman heard the casa of John William Wado, tinsmith and plumber, of Gis. < borne, Trancis Fowler, George" Squire Fowler, and "Frederick Stokes, manufacturing plumbers, cauytng' on business as F. and W. Fowler, of Auckland, versus Hardloy and Hardley, Ltd, manufacturing plumbers, of Auckland. Re. , served judgment was delivered yesterday. ' Mr. Skorrett, K.C., with him Mr Ostler, appeared for .plaintiffs, and Mr. Weston, instrutted by Mr. Earl * (Auckland), for do- ' fendants. It was \pomted out at the that plaintiffs were proprietors of a patent for Wade's Improved Iron Skylight Framo. Defendants had another patent for a skylight frame, which plaintiffs claimed to ho an infringement of their patent. An action was commenced by plaintiffs, and a statement of defence was filed, denying the infringement. The action was roforred to arbitration, and the arbitrators, after hearing evidence, made an award.., Defendants moved for judgment upon the award. Plaintiffs were anxious to get <• further timo, and urged counsel for defendants to dqlay tho motion. This was agreed to upon Wtani conditions, and an agreement was rtrawn up between counsel for the parties ems bodying those conditions The agreement ', stated that the defendants' motion should 1 stand adjourned for three 'wpeks, and if at '■the end of that period plaintiff'! had not sot ) ((down- a motion to review the findings of the , i arbitrators, judgment should be 'oithuith on!'tercd £ for tho defendants, without objection on tho part of the plaintiffs By a slip on the / part of a clerk in the office of plaintiffs' solicitors, the notice of motion, although served I upon the solicitors for defendants, was not i. filed within the three wiaks. It was actually j- filed a day or two after rho last day fi\cd bv i« the agreement. Plaintiffs moved to extend Inone week the time allowed in the agreement , 'Mr. Justice Edwards delivered the judgment of the' Court His Honour said that, if tlie j -whole of the facts had ben nlaced before the Court, no judge would havo allowed dofendanti to take advantago of a 'slip on tho part of a clerk in ,the office of plaintiffs' solicitors. Tt would have been the duty'of the Court to »v that plaintiffs .would not lose their rights '■- cause of the error of a clork There coul no objection, continued his Honour, to mal ■ an order granting leavo to plaintiffs to "n, and seive, Vithin seven davs a notice of motion to enter judgment for plaintiffs, upon any 1 Wounds on which thoy-might desire to rely. , If, as .the Court understood, plaintiffs desired to question, the finding of the arbitrators on , the fa,cts, itwould bo necessary that this should he 6\Dlici|ly stated in the notice of motion. PlaintiJfi admitted that they must pay dei \ fendanfa\costs on tho* motion, and these'would be fired at twenty gnineas. "It in unfortunate." conclnded his Honour, "that tho "true position of tho matter, os it appears to us, was not fully appreciated by the'solicitors and counsel on either side"