AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 14303, 24 February 1910, Page 7

AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT.

A BATCH OF JUDGMENTS.

REGISTRATION OF ACCOUNTANTS.

Tjik civil sittings of the Supreme Court were continued yesterdaybefore Mr. Justice Edwards. For various reasons; however, all the cases called were either v adjourned or struck out. ' Some of them have 'keen adjourned until to-day. His Honor delivered a number of reserved judgments. "

In ,the': case in which Thomas Rowe George appealed against the • decision of the Board of Accountants, to refuse to register him Mr. Schnauer appeared for the appellant. His Honor, in giving judgment, said , the caee was .an appeal under section 10, subsection 2, of the New Zealand Accountants Act, 1908. The appellant had made application to the board on March 26, 1909, for registration, and the application was refused in September, on the grounds that the board was not satisfied that the appellant had shown-himself to be efficient. The proper • course would have been for the appellant to'have improved his evidence, and to require the board, to reconsider the matter, but lie had lodged an appeal against the decision of he board on ■ September 22. His Honor, held that it was impossible for him to.'send' the matter back to the board for rehearing. ; The appellant had : his sympathy, but it was not in the power of the Court to relieve him. ;■ . The only way that, lie could :ee for the appellant was to endeavour to get some amendment to the Act. ■:..'

A PATENT -SKYLIGHT.

In the case of John William Wade anil others v. Hardley and Hardley, Limited, -tin-action fur the alleged infringement of a patent, in connection with a new skylight, the plaintiffs moved to have the finding of the arbitrators reviewed, and for judgment. Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., and Mr. Blomfield : appeared '.for the -plaintiffs, and Mr. F. Earl and Dr. Bamfoid for the defendants. ' '■ , Hie Hmor, in.delivering judgment, said that, at his suggestion, the questions in difference were, by order of this Court, referred to the arbitration of three persons, one of whom was appointed by the plaintiffs,"'- one by the defendants, and the third by the two others appointed .-by; the parties. The arbitrators, were unanimously ,of opinion that Griffiths' method, for whom Hardley and Hardley , were licensees,, did not infringe Wade's patent, but they.:- were not able to decide the legal' effect of the clause in Griffiths' patent specification, affirming that his invention referred to an timprovement .V in skvlight frames invented by Wade. His' Honor' was now called upon to review, the finding of .three gentlemen, who. he understood, were 1 of acknowledged .eminence in mechanical matters, .'upon notes of evidence which were to •a- large extent incomprehensible. He had anxiously considered this case," because it was t extremely desirable that when a beneficial idea had been started by one. man lie, should have the benefit pf his invention, and that it should i not ■be curtailed and destroyed by another man „ simply improving upon the idea; but if . the idea were nothing more than the discovery of a road to attain a particular end, it did not at all interfere with another man discovering;another, road to attain to . that end, any more than that of one man having a road to go to Brighton by Crovdon, interfered with another man who had a road to go to Brighton ' by 3 Dorking. They ; were the roads and , means of attaining the end, i and -.unless it could be proved that one was a colourable imitation of the other, or bodily „ incorporated the other, with merely an addition, it " was impossible to say that they should not, be coexistent subjects of contemporaneous patents. The question was whether ,or not. the skylight manufactured bv the defendants was an infringement of the mechanism claimed bv the plaintiffs. The object of both i skylights was the same—to exclude the water, while still admitting the light. : After reviewing the of the :contrivances of Griffiths and Wade at length, and quoting judgments given in cases of a similar nature-, Hi.* Honor said that'defendants must have judgment, with costs. 1 v •

APPLICATION, FOR NEW TRIAL. In the case of Montague Garnaut v. James Phillips Bennett, an action for alleged ' slander 'on four . different counts, the plaintiff made application ' for; a new trial on three grounds. The caSQ was heard before a . jury of four on December 14, 15. arid 16 last; when a. verdict for the defendant was returned ion all counts. The grounds on which . the ■ motion for a new trial was made were: (1) 'That the verdict was. against'- the weight'; of evidence, con*, trary to the direction of the judge, and perverse; (2) that* material evidence had been discovered since the trial, which could not have been foreseen ;or known at the < trial; 'and . (3) that a witness, 'called; by . the • defend ' was . guilty of such , misconduct as •to affect the result ; of the" trial. 'His Honor referred at length to the principles upon which new. trials were granted, and said if there must be an order . j for a new trial of the ; second and third counts of the plaintiff's statement of claim. The costs of the • motion were fixed- at £10 '■ 10s, and were reserved, together with the ' costs of , the first trial, until after the second trial. ; The verdict of the jury upon the first and fourth counts of the plaintiff's statement of claim would not be interfered with, but further proceedings; in respect of the causes of action alleged in those counts would be staved until after the second trial. Mr. E. W. Burton appeared for the plaintiff in sunport- of the motion, and Mr. T. Cotter for the defendant. .. ——— : — r r ■ ■ BROKER AND CLIENT.' His Honor, also delivered, his reserved, judgment in the appeal 1 from . the decision of Mr. C. C. Kettle. S.M., in the case of A. J. Canning v.'.'William Gruar. It will be remembered that 'in "the " Magistrate Court the plaintiff claimed the sum of £130 from the defendant on account of the latter having sold certain shares; which the plaintiff alleged: were his. .J Defendant, however, had stated that the shares were his own. The magistrate had found for the plaintiff. .■ ' . In the appeal, Mr. J. R. Reed, instruct-; e;l by Mr. M. G. McGregor, appeared for the appellant, and Dr. Bamford. instructed by Mr.- J. F. Pullen, for the. respondent, d In delivering judgment, His Honor said the question which had : been decided ;by the magistrate rested purely on the credibility of the witnesses, and under these circumstances .lie would not interfere with the magistrate's decision. The appeal would be dismissed with costs. / < • After the judgments had been delivered, the Court was adjourned until 10.30. a.m. this morning. \ .