THE CYANIDE PATENTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10415, 13 April 1897, Page 5

THE CYANIDE PATENTS.

IMPORTANT APPEAL CASE. [Bit TELEGRAPH.— COHKE3POXDENT.J Wellington', Monday. Is the Supreme Court to-day, before Mr. Justice Edwards, an appeal by the Cassel Company, from a decision of the Patent Officer, who refused an application by the company to amend specification of the oyanide process of extracting gold from ore oame on for hearing. Sir R. Stout, Mr. Theo. Cooper (Auckland), and Mr. Quick (Wellington) appeared for the company. Mr. Button (Auckland), Mr. Stafford (Wellington), and Mr. Hall appeared in support of the decision of the Registrar of Patents. Sir R, Stout in opening the case said that certain preliminary questions of law had to bo argued bofore taking the evidence, which was of a purely teohnioal and scientific character. (1) As to whether the AttorneyGeneral had any status before the Registrar i (2) whether the application to amend asked for any power to enlarge, or for anything different from the original specification. Mr. Harper, of Auckland, who was one of the objectors, had withdrawn his opposition. A telegram from him to that effect had only received that morning. Ho (Sir R. btout) contended that the AttorneyGeneral had no power to object to the amendment. As Mr. Harper had withdrawn his opposition, there was only this objection of the Attorney-General left. The notice of objection was given pending an action being taken, but leave was given to the Cassel Company to apply for an amendment of their patent. Ho contended that the Attorney-General was not "any person" within the meaning of the 30th section of the Statute who could object to the amendment, He was a public officer, and simply a part of the machinery provided by law for certain objects. He possessed no interest which could give a right to interfere, and not being a "person" within the meaning of section 30 of the Act, he had no locus itandi before the Registrar. Mr, Theo. Cooper, in support of Sir Robert Stout's contention, said the words "auy person," as used in the statute, must be taken in a restrictive sense. They did not include the Attorney-General. "Sir Patrick Buckley," if he had an interest in the matter, would come within the meaning of "any person," but it was not so with the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General simply represented the Crown, and in no other capacity except as representing the Crowu had the Attorney-Geuoral any function in patent proceedings before the Registrar. The statute gave no power of objecting whatever to the Attorney General. True, ho might petition for the revocation of a patent, but there the power was given him by express nomination. He is not " any person." The Attorney-General might cancel a patent. Mr. Justice Edwards: If ho has the power to cancel a patent it seems odd that he should not _ have the power to object before the Registrar, seeing that objection of some kind must be the ground for cancelling. Mr. Theo. Copper: In England the At-torney-General is not one of the objectors, because he is himself the judge in patent cases, It is for him in all such cases to "hear, consider, and decide," but if the Statute gave the Attorney-General power to cancel, that power did not entitle him to object to an amendment of the specification. The persons entitled to be heard before the Registrar must have an interest in the matter, tho Attornoy-General, qm Attorney-General, had no interest in this matter. He was not a " corporation," nor even a " quasi-corpora-tion." He was himself a statutory officer, and that in a peculiar sense. Mr. Justice Edwards: If he is not a " person;" if he is not a " corporation," or a " quasi-corporation" then what is he ? Mr. T. Cooper: He is the King's attorney, and lis can only intervene when the King (the Crown has a right to be determined). He has power to petition or to cancel where the rights of the Crown are concerned, but he has no power (under the statute) to object to an amendment ot the patent. Mr. Button said he was free to admit that there was some anomaly apparent in construing the Mew Zealand statute with the English Act. The draftsman of the New Zealand statute had not done all that was necessary to bring tho alterations proposed into harmony with the provisions of the English statute. The Crown acts in a great many ways vicariously. The AttorneyGeneral is the king's vicar, so to speak. Mr. Justice Edwards: Is it not tluts-A patent is in tho nature of a Crowu grant. The Crown makes the grant, and the Attorney-General is the vicar, agent, or officer of the Crown. If that be so, does not tho'Attoi'ney-General, acting for the Crown and on behalf of the Crown, authorise the patent? It he did not sanction it, would the grant be made? _ Mr. Button; In England, under tho English statute, the final appeal is to the Attor-ney-General. He protects the right of the Crown, and the rights of the public under the statute. The cases cited by Sir. Cooper vory's patent and others) were decided on grounds distinct from those which are urged in this case by counsel for the company.. The English Act limited the ground of opposition, but the New Zealand statute did not put any such limit upon the application for an amendment. The Attorney-General is a "corporation sole." He is the officer of tho Crown. Ho is the person contemplated by the ' statute in the procedure provided by the statute in the revocation of a patent. He is specially _ mentioned. The statute would be contradictory if on the one hand it gave powers of revocation, and on the other refused the power to object to an amendment. It would be highly inconvenient if the powers of the Attorney-General were to be prejudiced by refusing him the power to oppose an amendment in cases where large public interests, wore concerned. Sir Robt. Stout, in reply, said the rights of the Queen were never concerned unless where

they were specially named. In the particular statute her rights were not named. In this statute, subsection 4 of the Act pro- j vided for cases where there was no opposition. Mr. Harper had withdrawn his opposition. He would > ask the Court to rule that even the Registrar could not appear. Under sub-section 5 the Registrar may appear, but only because there was no other person provided to inform the Court. j Mr. Buttou hoped the Court would not I give such an interpretation to the Act as was contended for by Sir Robert Stout. Sir Robert Stout said the whole thing was whether the amendment proposed was an "enlarging" of the patent. The company had disclaimed the use of strong solutions of cvanide. They asked that the patent should be limited to dilute solution. That was limiting the patent, not "enlarging" it. The company was willing to take a patent for dilute solutions only. The amendment simply made definite what had been previously vague! His Honor reserved judgment upou the legal points argued by counsel. Mr. Greenway, manager and agent in New Zealand for the Cas3el Company, was the wituess called. His evidence was entirely technical, and related to the influences which cyanide of potassium, cyanogen chloride, and cyanide of ammonia had upon gold ores. He informed the court that the cyanide process had saved about £600,000 of bullion in New Zealand. Ho was examined upon the fact that it was perfectly well-known cyanide of potassium would dissolve gold. He was aware that Mr. Skey, the Government analyst, had made experiments before cyanide of potassium had come into general use, but Mr. Skey's results were upon gold itself and not gold in the ore. The patent which the Cassol's Company relied on was to extract gold with a weak solution of cyanide, about two per cent. He was not aware of any other patent for extracting gold from the ore. A strong solution of cyanide of potassium would of course, extract gold, but the question of cost was an objection to its general use: besides in excess of what was actually required it would give a less favourable result. The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Button upon the more intricate details of his evidence. Professor Brown, of the Auckland University College, was the next witness. He described various experiments he had made, beginning with a theoretical solution. He had made numerous experiments with the ore of the Wailii mine, the Woodstock mine, and others. The results varied according to the mode of applying the solution, Mr. R. Banks, battery manager of the Waihi mine, was the next witness. His evidence was of the greatest importance, for Sir Robert Stout directed his questions to discover whether Mr. Banks had taken the idea of using cyanide of potassium from the company's specification. He deposed that he knew only that cyanide of potassium would dissolve gold. This afforded the suggestion to experiment with it upon the ores. He tried solutions of differeut degrees of strength upon different classes of ore. _ He knew nothing at that time of the specification of the Cassel Company. The witness had been three years and a half in the Thames School of Mines. He classified the results of his experiments, and was enabled to determine what strength of the solution of cyanide of potassium had the greatest'influence in the treatment of particular ores. ■■ Professor Black, the well-known metallurgist of the Otago University, was the next i witness examined. He said he was a doctor | of - science'• of •' Edinburgh; ' that ' he ; had a principal 'part' in: establishing Schools of Mines in different parts of New Zealand—at : the Thames, at Reef ton and Rimu, and other I places. % This witness gave very important I evidence upon the manipulation and treat-

ment of ores. He followed closely the experiments detailed by Professor Brown. Mr. Banks, the last witness, was one of his pupils. , o L .L The proceedings had not closed when the Court rose at 5 p.m.