CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 9831, 28 May 1895, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE FEMALE LABOUR BUREAU.

POLICE PROTECTION.

DEVONPORT WESLEYAN SUNDAYSCHOOL.

THE CYANIDE PATENT.

TO THE EDITOR. ■-"*■ .-''■'' Sib,— your issue of 23rd you give an account of the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in the action, the Casael Gold Extracting Company (Limited) versus Cyanide Gold Recovery Company. This account — well as the remarks thereon— although containing an element of truth, is likely to mislead those who are anxiout to get at the real truth of the matter. It ie a fact that the appeal has been dismissed, but this is only based on a technical objection to the construction of the specification, which is far from irremediable, and the judgment is by no means decidedly given against the existence of any rights on the part of the Cassel Company to 1ev?..,, royalties. In support of this I would ask you to be so good as to give publicity t< the following "extracts from the judgment of Lord Justice A. L. Smith, which yout correspondent has evidently overlooked. They are as follow :— "Evidence was unhesitatingly given by, amongst others, Professors Dewar, Austen, and Crookes that a dilute solution of cyanide of potassium has been found to have the properties which the plaintiffs claimed for it. . . No evidence was given as to how it was that the plaintiffs brought aboub the results which they unquestionably did, if they did nob bring them about in the manner they claimed. . . . But it is said even if so, yet there was no novelty in what the plaintiffs have claimed by reason of the information which had been set forth in prior publications. To show that this was bo, a series of published documents was put in evidence by the defendants commencing with Elkington's specification in 1840 and ending with Hannay's in 1887, and amongst them weir five specifications — namely, Elkington's, Rao's, Saunder's, Simpson's, and Hannay's. We do nob propose to go through this list, for it is sufficient to take those which the defendants' witnesses point to, as being the best for elucidating that for which they were 'pat • in—namely, Faraday's paper, Rae'a specification, Dixon's paper, and Simpson's specification. As regards Faraday's paper it deals only with gold in iti pure state, . . . but he in no way foreshadows its applicability or utility to the extracting of gold from the other baser metals, as it exists in the earth. A3 regards Rae's American patent, it appears to us that Rae might just as well have used aqua regia or any other known solvent of gold in connection with his current of electricity, and have brought aboub the desired result, which, however, he never attained. We now come to Dixon's paper. ... In our opinion this paper of Dixon's is cogent evidence in favour of the plaintiffs, and equally so against the defendants. Now, as to Simpson's patent of 1885 . . . We are of opinion that neither Simpson's specification nor any of the other four are an anticipation of the plaintiffs' invention. The point as to disconformity, when the law applicable thereto is borne in mind, in our opinion comes to nothing. .'."'. . We cannot hold thab there is any disconformity as argued by the defendants."

It will thus be seen that the judgment is entirely in favour of the Cassol Company, with the small exception of the technicality mentioned above.—l am, etc., H. Howard Greknway, Manager, New Zealand. The Cassel Gold Extracting Co., Limited.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, —I notice by today's issue that the New Zealand Government have added a female branch to the Labour Bureau,,and that all we have to do if in want of a charwoman is to telephone the bureau, and they will send us one post-haste. Delightful arrangement! I have for some years past employed an estimable old lady to do my bib of washing and scrubbing, but, alas! she is dead. Can you say if I send a telephone to the Hon. Reeves, will he selecb a suitable person for me and send her on by the Hinemoa? It would save me an immense amount of trouble that I should otherwise have to take were I to advertise for applicants for the " sitiwation."-—I «m etc., Thos. Dalrymple-

I TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — Will you allow me space to add my testimony to the urgent necessity £01 increased police protection, as requested by our worthy town clerk. In addition to the numerous' burglaries, sneak thieving,, clothes-line robberies, etc., constantly occurring in our midst, it seems we ara exposed to a new danger, viz., pocketpicking. At All Saints' evening: service on: Thursday, my wife, our neighbour Mrs. Ogle, and a lady residing on Ponsonby Road, each lost her purse. I hare no doubt the individual advertising loss of purse, three notes, and key, in your Saturday's issue," was another victim. I think the easy access to our city from Melbourne »nd Sydney brings over many " birds of prey ;" and the sooner such undesirable visitors are tracked down the better, or they will settle amongst us and become a constant source of insecurity and loss to the whole community. They are evidently experts to rob several people in one evening with impunity, bub I sincerely hope their cleverness will not protect them from speedy detection. I think that the reason our Ponsonby district is particularly favoured by this light-fingered fraternity is the fact that our local police have recently been reduced from the strong (?) staff of two to one solitary constable. Evidently as police protection decreases crime in the district increases. In the interest of Ponsonby residents, I ask that at least we are allowed the same number of constables at before. —lam, etc., W. H. Crick.

Argyle-street, Ponapnby.

TO THE EDITOR. * Sir,—ln a lei tor which appeared in your issue of the 15th instant the Rev. L. Hudson states that the actual amount raised during the ministry of a former minister was about a quarter the cost of the building, and that most of the balance was raised at) a public meeting called for the purpose, and adds "your correspondent is as unfortunate in his facts as he is ungenerous it spirit " He also " substantiates the veracity " of your previous contributor's statements. Will you permit me through your columns to remind that gentleman that the amount promised at the public meeting was £32, and the amount raised prior to his advent was upwards of £80;- The contract for the building alone, without lining and extras, was £147.-1 am, etc., Justice.