WIRELESS CASE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 71, 23 March 1912, Page 7

WIRELESS CASE.

MARCONI v. HUDDART-PARKER TIME FOR FILING DEFENCE EXTENDED. Mention of the litigation between the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company, Ltd, and the Huddart Parker Proprietary was made before Mr. Justice Sim in Chambers to-day on a motion by defendant company asking for an extension of time in winch to file a defence. The grounds were that the statement ment of defence will involve : (1) An exemination "by experts of the specifications of each of -the letters patent set out in the statement of claim and their comparison with the specifications of the letter* patent for all other wireless systems for which patents have been granted in Australia, Great Britain, Germany, and elsewhere ; (2) the making of numerous models and drawings in Australia, and the conducting of experiments; and (3) the obtaining of reports and advice from leading experts in wireless telegraphy. Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. C. B. Morison, appealed in support of the motion, and All*. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. A. R. Meek, for the Marconi Company. In opening Sir John Findlay referred to an affidavit filed by H. L. Cumming, a&siscant electrician in the employ of the Post and Telegraph Department, who said it was impossible to secure the necessary txpert assistance wanted for filing a defence in New Zaland. Counsel had been collecting evidence ii various parts of New Zealand, but in the absence of anyone who knew the subject, nothing could be done. Commissons to call evidence in England would be required.* It was essential that the defence should be in a final shape, and he was unable to file a final defence until he received certain information. He might require six months' time to call the defence. In reply, Mr. Skerrett characterised the application as a most unreasonable one. Notice of action was given- in. November last, and the writ was issued in December. Already three months had passed. In connection with a similar case n* Australia, it was hoped to 6end a, commission to England next month, and there would an enormous saving of expense if the commissions coalesced. This -was why his company desired the statement to be filed as soon as possible. His Honour: What do you suggest? Mr. Skerrett: I submi| that the defence ought to be filed wichin a month or 60. Sir John Fin-Hay said his object could not be secured under three months. Replying to Mr. Skerrett's contention that three months had lapsed, he said his clients did not nefd to go on until the plaintiff company found security for costs three weeks ago. His Honour said it seemed desirable that the exact lines should be settled before any commission issued. The , question was, what was a reasonable time. He would allow defendant company three months' further time. If the complete statement of defence was not filed then, a further application could be made. At the request of Mr. Skerrett, Sir John undertook to file a complete statement from which no variation could be made without reference to a Judge. Defendant was ordered to pay £3 3e costs.