COURT OF APPEAL.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 879, 27 July 1910, Page 7

COURT OF APPEAL.

THE PATENT SKYLIGHT CASE. The Court of Appeal, with the Ch'ief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and Justices Cooper and Chapman on the Bench, concluded yesterday its hearing of the skylight patent case. In this case, the appellants, John William Wade, plumber, of Gisborne, and F. and W. Fowler, manufacturing' plumbers, Auckland, claimed that the defendants, Hardlejr and Hardley,' Limited, manufacturing plumbers, Auckland, had infringed Wade's patent by making and selling skylights similar to the design patented by Wade. Charles Griffiths, plnmber, of New Plymouth, patentee of skylights made and sold by Hardley and Hardley, was joined as a defendant. Mr. C. P. Skerrotf, Iv.C., and Mr. E. C. Blomfiold, appeared for the appellants, and Dr. Bamford for the respondents. Argument turned chiefly upon the points of similarity and points of difference between the two designs. The Court reserved its decision. CROWN BAFFLED. PECULIAR CRIMINAL CASE. The Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justice Cooper, and Mr. Justice Chapman wero on. the bench yesterday afternoon, when the Court of Appeal had'before it the case of the Kins; v. Charlie Grbich.' The.Solicitor-General (Air. J. W. Snlnioml) appeared for Die Crown, and Dr. Bamford, of Auckland, for the respondent. The prisoner had pleaded not guilty at Auckland to a charge of criminal assault upon a girl, who" had since become his wife. The Crown Prosecutor pro-

posed to call her as a witness, but objection was taken, and Mr. Justice Chapman held that he could not compel her to be sworn or examined in the cause. The Crown Prosecutor then intimated that his case depended on the girl's evidence, and his Honour directed the jury to acquit the prisoner. In view oi the importance of the question, however, tho judge stated the-case for the Court of Appeal, setting forth, that the question was whether, he could have compelled the witness to be sworn or to give evidence against her husband. The more general question as to the admissibility of her evidence was also open, and might be considered.

Sir. Salmond said two questions were involved: (1) Whether ti wife was competent to give evidence against her husband on a charge of criminal assault before marriage; and (2) whether she was compellable to give such evidence. Counsel argued that sho was competent, but not compellable, and that tho acquittal was therefore correct.

The. Chief Justice:. Will it not depend on the reading of our Evidence Act!'' Mr. Salmond: Partly on that, and partly on common law.

Mr. Justice Williams: Partly on tho general question of public decency. The Court gave judgment without calling on counsel for- the prisoner. The Chief Justice said that, as he was doubtful whether a woman was compellable under such circumstances to give evidence against her.husband, he was not prepared to say that Mr. Justice Chapman was wrong. The Legislature ought to 'make the matter plain. .. Mr. Justice Williams concurred. He v-as satisfied that in a case of this particular kiwi the wife was not compellable to give evidence. It would be disgracelul, immoral, and opposed to the whole relation of husband and wife if she were so compelled. Mr. Justice Edwards and Mr. Justice Cooper also , concurred in upholding the decision of the judge in tho Court below. Mr. Justice Chapman said that he had had to make up' his mind in the other Court, right away, and tho arguments that had now been placed before the Court had, convinced him that he had acted rightly.