THE COURTS—TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 4525, 30 August 1877, Page 2

THE COURTS—TO-DAY.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Gibbsand Clayton v. Lo Brun.—lathis case lis Worship gave judgment as follows : This is an action to recover LIOO dnmig. 8 for an m.'iiiaenjoiit of a p.itout The- p'aintiffa on 7th Ma.ch, 187 H. ot,iaincd letteis p.itent tUiiu the i-xclUiivM rjjjht to make, use, ex.-r'ciso,and veu'i wikhiu tho Colony, "au invention for tho New Zealand Cabb.ige-Trou llrooin." It was proved that tho defendant had mad-) brooms of the tree leaves siueo the p aent rijjht was granted wliiah h'3 son Jmd sold iu Imnodm. Tho leaves so ustd by tho defendant had not been tmhjectod to any hackliiK or steaming us speciiind to be the process fol. lowod m the uuiun'i c h:o i f the pJahitifl's Li\ oms The broom exhibited in Court as bointir ouo of those Hold by tho defendant's uiu wa' a iudo resoinblaiieo of the patent broom. The defendant proved th it one Parker ha 1 made- and a V.d brooms of cabbage, tree leaves at Liwniien in 187:1, and that he had himself made and sold similar brooms in Febniurv, l&rii. It wjs eojt. nJc.l for the dofen.iant that jii'igtnout must be iu his favor on tho following Kr.iuuda:—(l) Ambiguity of title, whieh bhonld have rial, "an invention to utilis > cabbage-tree loivc-s iu the mmufactu e of broom 3;" (2) the defendant had ma do and v. ndod hioonn made of cabbage-tree loavo-i before the patent right was graa.tod; and (3) tho process fo'lovel by bim was not ill? same ai ihb one in use by the plaintiff. It was ncswertsl for tie plaintiff . (1) Tnat tlwe was no am' in !he title; t) a', U.eplun. till' claimed the < x 'nsivj ji.ht, t", use tho matena s meu'i ru-d in the uia-.iiiiVuu ;■ o.' broims; (2) that thophvulili was t tily the invcLtor; ami (3) tha' ! letter* patent mu,t s aa 1 and hold good ti 1 C'HieelYd nr tet aside by piveiodiusrs irider a wiit, i of scire facias, iu tern s of the provisions eontniiud : ir. ;., c. lli of "The I ar.uts Aef, 1570." The fuvt j point to be oonsi-lfitL 1 is, whether shore oun b.' imv ' de ei ,:o t •■' an for of r. p.-.teut i rk'ut i !i tho pruiuj tti.'.t ill- ; is a v.ilid oljj-tion : to it, and that bu-.-h &u unction ciu only bo

thaHnTnL^^ ,k »i**» te be reasonable w T so . n **??* k°°a grounds for ohalleTw" should annlvT 8 Under l*tte»£Smt ai.ouia apply to get the letters catcalled, nspro?nv t"S Ln" 1S P ro ! id ? d herein that if at n eiud M lipp^.r t0 b0 contrary to law or T> ejuoici.l to the public, or that the invention is h,«LT ?0nc * he •**™-I»'ent shall fc« v*id? It i.Pßhortn nra M,,ilm..lr I.„M ,b»t «l.il« l n lter».iwtrut SeSruS^- 0 ** 0 aSßert hia ri « htat the rorin.u s . :t. t m u„, v v, u.ng in a Court of in w if the j.tM ty proceed against can show any valid ebjee ™ O, S Th!B h "beeaestobltoh«fbynuintK a^i. and rt ,n,r Ihe1 he P riuci Pal objections tlk« anl allowed have been the following :-(l) That the patentee was not the inventor. (2) That the vo, t t^iff 1 ! ?, r i'PPTOPerly describes thoin! , ut V 1W fbat the invention was not row to T, ? Ul ;V C ."' th ° dat 1 f tbe ratent - The common •n t. J ,^' y ? l \ l>oß - 0 ' t0 monopolies, ind all doubt on tb« 1 nueiple « removed by the D.-claratory Act called "The Etituro of Monopolies" .21 James 1,0. 23.) Nevertheless, for/.he encouragements lugjmouj men privileges for a limited term have boon granted, not as a matter of right, but of jrrace strictly in erpv.-teJ. I am therefore of opinion that , t L ' t C n Pu j'% v " po ? tbe to resort L.w J".? M <° • Court t0 Bet ftßidd the otters patent and that is competent to him to meet the w Tl w«rl°- ft ' 3labl i ahin objection which ! would remlor tbo jrrant void. The most serious ?r oi ZltlV* that the »PPW«'tionof cabbage! l.r • 4- ° P ur P° aa of the manufacture of bnponn m not a new invention. Tho proof on this point is mea S re ; but there is no reason to doubt that c*bbajje-tu» brooms were made and venicdly Parker in 1873, and by the dofen ant m February, In Carpenter v. Smith (1 Ws'er It. Ml.) Lord Abinger said «• ruble P^r. a » » M »? rcW3 ,'- does uot mom a U3 « ami f,^.ii.... y I ' U V , « l ?* bufc a ttud exercise iu a , üb! cin iu at .r, and that such a use of an invention n .WVT ao ;' Wo " ul \l e ™fawont to avoid a subsew r P i u T eut , fo t V t ' l! \. L o«"v. Hague (2, M. and W ~ oil) Lord Abinger hold that a sale to any one n; J i V V dUa , 1 w ;V nld be s V fflc: ° ut t0 avoid a subsequent Patent. Iu the case of Winter v. Mower (6. A..V E . 735) pre oi of the making and sale of a single chair •e o e the date ■ f the plaintiffs* patent was held to be sum i,nt to raue'er the patent void. Applying those cases to the facts prorcd in the present action, only one conclusion can bo come to. and that adverse to the plaintiffs' claim. It is not Fin!! ♦u el * n M tßn . < ; B J come to this conclusion, as I believe that the idea t« make these brooms would n,t have occurred to the defendant but for informrtiou obtained by his son when he was in the employment of the plaintiffs. His Worship wag about to give judgment for defendant, when Mr Denniston, on behalf ?,, l jl i u " elected take a nonsuit.— llaintitfd were nonsuited accordingly. Foaraonv. Lawson (Tokomairiro).—Claim, LIO, on a dishonored cheque.—Mr Mouat, for defendant, said hts client had filed a declaration of insolvency.— The case was adjourned for a week to enable plaintiff to ascertain the position of defendant t ,*!o rfci ? aud w »tson v. J. Woods.-Claim, LI Us, for wood supplied. Mr J. H. Harris appeared for defendant.—The case was ad-joann-d f<>r further evidence. r Judgment was given for plaintiffs by delault in the following cases :—C. Cooper v. A. Mausford, ckim LIO 18s on a judgment sum-nons (to be paid at the rate of LI per week, or fourteen days' imprisonment) : J. M'Laren v. J. Marshall, L 7 10s for rent; M Jvenz e (as trustee in Finlaysou's estate) v. J. L'oyd, LG 12s lid for goods supplied : same y. Marcus Mark, L2 18s; same v. .«1 Eachern, LI 2s 6d; same v. William IJoyd, L 6 19s; same v. Thomson Eikako, i ii ?^ d; , Gre ßß and Co - v - Andrew Reid, Lo4 16s 3d ; E. Austin v. M. O'Hare, 1 8 6s. O Jinen v. Clarke and Vernon.—Claim, L3J 151 9d, on a judgment summons. Mr Denniston appeared for plaintiff.—Defendant Cliike appeared and said that he had been ill for some weeks.—His Worship said Vernon, who appeared to have bolted; bad been the rascal; but Clarke had been connected wnh the rascality, and he muet pay the amount immediately or be imprisoned for s'x d iys. MargaretM'Dermid v. The Corporation of Port Chalmers.—Claim, LSO, damages on account of defendants' having, between January and August of the present year, < ntered plaintiffs land (section 59, Sawyev'a 1 Bvy), and there made excavations. Mr ! pjfcniston appeared for plaintiff; Mr Joyce for defendants.—This case was adjourned i for a week. CITY POLICE COURT. (Before T. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.J Duun-kenxes*.-Charles Scott was fined ss, in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment ; John Carlon, 10a, or forty-eight hours. Neglected Children.—Thomas Stevens (eleven years), Humphrey (eight), John (five), David (three), and Annie (fourteen month.), were brought before the Court as neglected children. Humphrey Stevens, their father, stated that he was unable to support the children. He was a steward on a steamer, but since his wife's death two months ago had been compelled to remain out of employment to look after them. I Thomas was apprenticed to Haig, Bramwell, I and Co., boot factors, but hi 3 employers were ! willing to cancel his indenture for twelve months, so that he might be committed to the Reformatory for that period.—Thomas was sent to the Industrial School for twelve months, Humphrey for three years, John, David, and Annie for five years.