LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1360, 10 February 1912, Page 15

LAW REPORTS.

THE BIG "AERO" CLAIM. MARCONI AND HUDDART PARKER. SPARKING FOR POSITION. "THE COSTS WILL BE HEAVY-" Reserved judgment was delivered in Hit , Supreme Court yesterday in a preliminary action in the ra«e of the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co., Ltd., against the Huddart Parker Proprietary, Ltd. This was an application by llmldnrt J'urker that Marconi should give security for costs in a proposed action at law. At the hearing Mr. 11. D. Jlell, K.C., with him Mr. A. I!. Meek, appeared for the Marconi Company, and Sir John Fimllay, K.C., appeared for the lluddart Parker Co. In the course of judgment, Mr. Justice Chapman said: "This action is for infringing patent or patents relating (o wireless telegraphy. The evidence filed on this application shows that the validity of Marconi's patent may be questioned. Apart from tins, it is stated that a commission will have to issue to take the evidence of electrical experts in England, and perhaps in Germany. Counsel have offered conflicting suggestions as to the probable costs of the action, but these are necessarily very speculative. It does not seem to me that the Court is ever called upon to attempt actually to compute the costs at this stage, and base the security on such an estimate. What it has to do is to arrive at a fair sum, having rega.rd to all the circumstances. The course suggested by defendant's counsel might have the effect of loading out a meritorious claim. If tho plaintiff company were shown to be insolvent, the Court might feel itself cnlUd upon to prevent demonstrable unfairness by making a closer estimate. I do not think, however, that I oit?ht so to treat this ease. The Marconi Company has (in litigation with other parties) established the validity ot certain patents, having in view tho same end as tlfat (fi-anted in New Zealand, and I am not in a position to say wnether the former patents differ materially from the latter. Moreover, I do not think that 1 ought to overlook the pre-emption that the Marconi Company is a solvent company when no suggestion to the contrary is made. Even if it has no assets hero in the shape of royalties, it can be made to answer in England on any judgment for costs obtained here. That is merely one of the several elements which have to bo considered, but it must be observed that, in this respect, a, defendant sued by a company is in a better position than when sued by a sovereign Government, or by a private person who may disperse his assets. "What is, however, apparent to me is that the costs of this action will necessarily be very heavy, assuming that a commission has to issue. Bevond seeing that they will bo very heavy, I cannot estimate them. I do not agree that tho Huddart-Parker Proprietary will be altogether precluded from applying for further security for costs incurred or likely to be incurred when such application is innde." i After quoting certain authorities, his Honour held that, in all tho circumstances, the proper sum to be deposited, or adequately secured by. Marconi was .£IOOO. An order of the Court was made accordingly, costs of the application (i guineas) to bo ninde costs in the action.

MARCONI CASE,

REMOVED TO APPEAL COURT. The case of the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company v. tho King was mentioned in tho Supreme Court yesterday by Mr. 11. D. 13ell; K.C., counsel for plain■'titTs.' Last week a. motion, on behalf'of the Crown, for security for costs, was adjourned pending decision on n preliminary point as to whether tho Crown was liable lor infringement of patent.

Thi) summons to argue questions of law was agreed to yesterday, and on the application of Mr. Bell, his Honour (Mr. Justice Chapman) agreed that the case should be removed into the Court of Appeal.

CIVIL LIST,

THE ORDER OF CASES. Mr. Justice Chapman presided at a Chamber sitting _of the Supreme Court yesterday, when the civil list was called over. The following fixtures were made:— Monday, February 12. Alico Conningham v. Arthur Conningham, petition for divorce. . . Fleming Ross v. James Drysdalo, claim for .£SOO damages alleged to be tlup, and for release on mortgage. Rα Teresa Briggs, bankrupt. Tuesday, February 13. JUf. (he King v. Walter Leopold Buller and others, claim for iMOO for duty alleged to be payable. Wednesday, February 11. Martha M'Gregor v. the District Land Registrar and others, declaration, etc. Thursday, February 15. James O'Dea v. T. G. Macarthy, claim for .6178 13s. Id., alleged to be due for work done. Friday, February 16. Percy M'Ehvain and others v. the Public Trustee. Monday, February 19. Undefended divorce cases: Joseph Edwin Ffrost v. Emilie Ffrost and another; Helen Stewart Goodson v. John Alfred Goodson; and Minnie M'Maugh v. Lancelot Meredith Tlicodoro M'Maugh. Friday, February 23, Joseph Auguste Feraiio v. the Chatham Island I'isheries Company. Monday, February 26. Bankruptcy sittimj.

LIBEL ALLEGED,

SIMSON-"HAWKE'S BAY TRIBUNE." Mention of the case of Horaco lan Simson v. the "Hawke's Bay Tribune" Company, Ltd., an action for alleged libel, v;xi made in. Chambers in the. SupTcmo Court yesterday, before Mr. Justice Chapman. Mr. E. P. Bunny appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. \\. Blair for tho defendant company. ■It was set out in the claim that Mr. George Nelson was a director of tho defendant company, and that ia previous proceedings in which lx>th he and the "Tribune" were defendants, Mr. Nelson said that he desired to keep Simson out of public life. Mr. Blair moved to strike out of the claim all reference to Mr. George Nelson. Hi? argument was that the references objected to were clearly irrelevant, and that they were merely made for the purpose of prejudicing defendant company in the eyes of the jury. Air. Bunny stated that the practice was laid down that such action must be taken promptly, and. in this case, the statement of claim Intel been issued in November. His Honour agreed that it was late, but probably not too laic. It was a nint'er in which the Court, was interested as well as the defendant company. The paragraphs referred to were irrelevant and piiilNirrfi'shi:. Though (he application to strike them out was made late, that (lid lint preclude the Cmirl from exevcisint; the rp(|uireil jurisdiction. Tho Court wmild make an order striking out the paragraphs, but us th« application was made late, no cosU would be allowed.

TRANSFER REFUSED

A XATIVK I.AMJ SALE. An action-O'Roiirki , v. t.\w Ikarua Maori Land .rinnrd- which \\n> In-aid in tho Supreme Court y«-,l?i-(b.v lii't'oiv Mr. Jtistii-s (.'hripiiiiin, war- siid by I he Solii-i----tor-Gcncral (Mr. .1. \V. to b'j the iirst c.n.-e in which the Court was asked to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by ?ec'ion 'J2O, Clause (5). of the Native Land Act, which siy<. "if confirmnticn is erroneously rrFusrd . . . any person acuHet'eil by the rcf<j«al innr u-illi-in ono mouth thercaitar apply to tho Su-

promo I'diirt fur a wril of maiiilaiiiiis us astiiii:-t Ihc linanl." It appc:n;'d I hat Tluuiias O'liourU purchased tin acre and n i|Utirlcr nl Maori laud ill Olalii. Hie price ul Ihc punliii-e licinj; .tllilMi, of which XM was paiil in ca-li. Winn tin' iipplicalioii for Iriiufer ctiinc holme Ihc Ibira Mami Land Hoard it \vn, icfu-cd on I lie .'-■) I thai Iho Niilivu lAViicr ini'jl'i spend I lie licy iniprovidcullv. O'li'inirkr Ilicrel'orc came to tlie Sii|n : eine Cciiirl. praviii- for a ■ iiaiuliiiiiils i-niiipclliiii! the Inunl to nuifirm the transfer. Mr. ('. l>. Morion appiarcd cilr O'llourkc, and I lit- Solicilor-lieneral (Mr. .1. W. Siilinond) lor the hoard. After lioiiriiiK loKiil tirjjuniciit, his Honour rcscrvcil decision.

HOUSEBREAKER.

AT , no ML"! , TO IiIOL'ORM HIM. A young Maori, named Tmu-i. alias llori'Wirihana, I'aino Ijolore Mr. .)u.-!icc Chapman in the Supreme Court yesterday, to Ijp si'iitcnccd on three charges ol lioiisolirenkins tuid theft at J'arakino, on the W'nngiiiiiii Kivcr. .Mr. It. H. Ostler, of Iho Crown Urn Oliioo, appeared for the Crown, and read out a Jist of previous convictions against the prisoner. His Honour, in passing sentence, remarked that the attempt to reform the prisoner by sliort terms of imprisonment had failed. AiiuMicr course would now have to bo adopted. The sentence of the Court would be two years' reformative treatment on <vich cliargf, the sentences to bo cumulative.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. \V. G. Kiddell, S.M.) DANGEKOUS DOG. VICIOUSI-Y ATTACKS CHILD. Daniel Hickey was charged wit'i being on December 31 the keeper of :t ilnngeroiis doj;, wliich nltackeil Thomas Joseph WeatliFrburn (a boy of four years), in Aro Street. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty. lie stated that ho did not own the dog. A witness gave evidioce to the eJYeet that he saw a fox d;rricr and the Irish terrier attacking thu child. The fox terrier was doing all the barking, and the Irish terrier all the biting. It was also stated in evidence that the child had to' receive medical attention. His Worship observed that Hickey should not keep the dog if it was vicious. Hickey was convicted, and iined .£l, and required to pay costs totalling 15s. "HEAKTLESS C'K UE LTY." Frederick Seed, the inspector for the S.J'.C.A., proceeded against /Waiter John FcJlinghum, a milkman, on charges of ill-treating a bay gelding and a roan mare. Felliugham pleaded guilty. The society's solicitor. Mr. A. ]!. Atkinson, stated that when Inspector Xced examined the mare it had a bleeding sore about three inches wide on one of its shoulders, and three of its legs were badly "gone." The animal was very low in condition, and showed signs of havrag been flogged. It had since been destroyed. Subsequent examination showed that it had a sore on one of its legs. It limped, it. was very old, and it appeared to have liren harshly treated. Mr. Atkinson remarked that there could bo no excuse for such heartless cruelty, and a severe penalty should be the punishment. On each charge the defendant was fined X' 3, and ordered to pay costs amounting to £1 2s. Cd. DESPERATE AND BLIND. John M'Carthy, alias Jl'Arthur, received a fine of £2 for resisting Constable Holmes when the latter was executing his duty, and was fined for using certain language. He was also ordered to pjiv Bs. Gd. for damaging the constable's shako.

Sub-Inspector Sheehan stated that M'Carthy was well known all over New Zealand. Since 1902 eighteen convictions had been made against him. Whenever he was arrested he resisted violently. He was a desperate man, and some day might injure someone for life. Counsel for the accused (Mr. Kennedy) stated that tho man, who was blind, got into his trouble, through drink. On the present occasion he resisted because he thought that the constablo was someone molesting him.

CONTRACTOR AND ACCIDENT. As being in control of a building contract—"when and where an accident occurred"— John M'Donald was fined 10s. for failing to notify, in writing, the Inspector of Scaffolding of the fact of the accident. Jl'Donald stated that he was not avrare of his obligation to notify. His Worship considered that the defendant ought to have known. OTHER CASES. Alfred Gibson Gunson, a prohibited person, was fined ,£3 for procuring beer. Richard Brooks was fined 10s. for driving a bull, without yoke, along Trent Street, Island Bay. Prohibition orders were issued against John .M'Vicar, Joseph Scott, and James Wright. For a certain offence Graham Douglas Burns was fined £i. James Jlack was sentenced to one month's imprisonment for a certain act at Lyall Bay. Mr. A. L. Ilerdman appeared for the accused. Eric Vincent Wallace pleaded guilty of a charge brought by the police of, when driving a motor-car along Ghuznee Street, he did not keep as close as practicably to the left side of tho thoroughfare. Ho was fined 10s., and ordered to pay 19s. as costs.