Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

COURT REPORTS.

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27th. SUPREME COURT. (Before His Honor Sir Robert Stout, C.J.) AUCKLAND PATENT CASE. An appeal by Ivor Evans, merchant, Auckland, against a decision of the Registrar of Patents, granting a patent to Henry Storey, watchmaker, Kyber Auckland, for “improvements in boiler**." was heard-

Tho appeal was based on tho grounds (I) that the Registrar erroneously decided that the above-named applicant was the true and first inventor of tho (alleged invention, or improvements, described in tho specification of the invention; (2) that the Registrar erroneoiiHiy decided that tho invention was not published and publicly used in New Zealand prior to tho date of the application; £3> that tho alleged invention was published in New Zealand by the manufacturer previous to tho application for letters patent, and there were on sale in Auckland ami elsewhere boilers for washing clothes, or .steaming purposes, containing all, or essentially all, the elements of tho alleged invention; (4) that the kettle and coil forming the subject mailer of letters patent No. 15,141 were an anticipation of tho applicant’s boiler and coil; (5; that the specification Accompanying Ihe application for letters patent did not particularly describe and ascertain the nature of the alleged invention. and in what manner the same tb»s to be performed; and that in other respects iho application was insufficient and ambiguous, and framed to mislead.

Mr O. P. Skerrett. K.C., with Mr Neave, appeared 111 support of the appeal, and Mr O. B. Monsou on tho other side.

Evidence was given in support of tho appeal, which proved the patent to have been prior to tlm application for protection*, tho objection of want of novelty therefore prevailed. The witnesses*’ called were:—Herbert Andrew Rimer. Win, Mcnzies, Jno. Clark, and run on Beale.

After the luncheon adjournment, Mr AfoM-on informed tho Court that he had considered the evidence, and did not feel justified in proceeding further. He opposed the granting of costs to the nnpoUnnt, ns he had - brought on entirely different case from that before, tho Regist rn’* of Patents, Air Shcrrett hold it was quite clear that costs could bo allowed, and that the case was a very appropriate one for * g'rrrntin*' costs. His Honor said the practice for nearly twenty years had been to grant costs in cases of this kind, and ho did not think he should lay- down a new rule. The appeal was allowed with ton guineas co«H, witnesses'' expenses and disbursements; the Registrar to fix the costs of the proceedings before him. The Court adjourned until 10.30 this morning. MAGISTRATES’ JURISDICTION. ‘ (Before Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M.) POLICE CASES. For drunkenness. Martin Oageson was fined 10s, in default forty-eight hours' •imprisonment. Albert Roberts was remanded until October 2nd on a charge of theft of jewellery, valued at «£36 13s, the property of Frank Bedford. ! David Alexander Elliott and Albert Thomas Skalli© were each fined 40s and costs 7b for being found on licensed premises during the currency of prohibition orders against them. A child named Lyla Alfred Murray, whose mother is in indigent circumstances and unable to support it, was committed to the Wellington Receiving Homo. |

Robert Craig, convicted on Wednesday of baring converted to his own use the sum of 10s Bd, the property of the Excelsior Laundry, was ordered to come up for sentence when called upon, the Probation Officer's report being favour-

able. A prohibition order was issued against him. James Egan was committed to the Supreme Court for trial on a charge of having used obscene language in Sydney street on September 13th, ho having elected to be tried by a jury. Ball was allowed, accused in <£s, and one surety of JCS.

William Miles, who pleaded guilty to a charge of having left an express in Donald McLean street longer than was for the loading or unloading of goods, was fined 2s and costs (7s). W 'II. Shepherd, for driving a vehicle without lights in Customhouse quay, was fined 2s and costs (7s). ALLEGED THEFT OF BOOTS. Victor Septimus Boston pleaded not guilty to a charge of theft of three pairs of boots, valued at .£2 14s 6d, the property of Alexander Dindore. ' CliiefDetoctivo McGrath called Samuel Dindore. a nephew of complainant, who stated that his undo kept a second-hand shop in Manners street. On the evening of Soptemlier 19th accused and two others were leaning against the window of Dindore’s shop. Two of them, including accused, covered the other man while he “lifted" three pairs of boots that were hanging outside the shop. One of the three men then went into a second-hand shop, where they sold one pair, receiving in return five single shillings. Tho three men went up Taranaki street, followed by Samuel Dindore, who found Servant Beattio in Ingestre street. The sergeant arrested two of the men, including accused, the other • not being near then, and proceeded to take them to Mount Cook police station. On the way the second man said “My name s Scoot”—and “scooted." Accused was taken to the station, and searched, five single shillings bring found in his possession. Accused, on oath, denied all knowledge of the theft. His Worship said the case was a very suspicious one. but there was a doubt of accused s connection with the theft, and he must bo •riven tho benefit of the doubt. The information would be dipmi^ped. FORGING AND UTTERING.

i John Desmond, alias D. Esmond, was charged that on August 3lst, at Masterton,‘ho did forge the name of Charles Gibbons to a cheque for ,£l2 X7s. and did utter tho same to William James Vernon. The evidence for the prosecution was that on the dnv mentioned accused wont to the shop oL-Pntnck Hnraill. draper Mastorton, ami purchased goods to til" value of £* 16,. 11l payment for the goods he tendered a cheque for ,£l2 17< bearing the signature Henry diaries Gibbons.” who, accused said, was a seedsman in Wellington. Tim eheqne was then accepted by Mr HamilTs manager, and J2B Os Gd handed to aconsed. , , Henry Clifton Gibbons, seedsman, denosed that the cheque produced had not been signed by him. nor did the signature bear any resemblance to his firm s signature. ... . . o .Accused was committed to the supreme Court for trial.

ATTEMPTED THEFT FROM A TILL. John Cooper and George Hunter pleaded not guilty to a charge of attempted theft from the till of Evelyn Gardiner, fruiterer, Courtenay Place, on September 17th. . Complainant and her mother stated that on the evening of the 17th they were in a room behind the stop when ihrw heard the till-bell ring. They rushed into the shop and found Hunter stretched across tb» counter with his hand under tho till. Cooper stood by the door. When the women came into the shoo Hunter began ringing a small Kaud-bell on the counter, and then, beimr under the inflnence of liquor,, made sally remarks about the fruit in the shop. Both accused were afterwards picked ont from a dozen men os the guiltv ones. . Each had a long list of convictions against him. . Sentences of twenty-one days with hard labour were imposed. ALLEGED SLY-GEOG SELLING. Charles Mercer was charged with selling liquor, to wit. whiskey, to one David Gibson, on September Bth without being licensed to do eo. Accused, who pleaded not guilty, was represented by Mr Herdman.

Station-Sergeant Phair opened the case for the prosecution, but the principal witness for the Crown was unable, through having had "a few drinks," to

give his evidence properly, and the eaeo was therefore adjourned until October 4th. BY-LAW CASES. Mr J. Doyle, corporation inspector, ' proceeded against several per&ons for broaches of the city by-laws.-Walter Ernest Pearson pleaded guilty to a charge of having erected a canvas covering over the footpath in Feather- ; ston street, Mr Pearson stated that on Friday, tho 20th inst., the Wellesley, Club, of which he in secretary, opened , its new premises with a dance, and the | canvas erection on the footpath was , used in connection with tho affair. Defendant had a permit for the erection j of a hoarding half-way across the foot-j path while tho building operations were going on. Defendant was fined 2e 6d and costs, 7e. - (Before Dr McArthur, S.M.) George Remington, charged that, being a licensed drainlayer, he laid a drain connected with a sewer within the city without having first obtained a permit from the City Surveyor, was fined .£2 and costs (14s). John Lane pleaded not guilty to a charge that, being the driver of a licensed vehicle, he refused to carry in. and by his vehicle, one Walter Ernest Pearson. Mr Johnston, who appeared for tho defence, raised several points of law, and his Worship reserved judgment until next Friday morning. CHARGE OF ASSAULT DISMISSED. Nathaniel Hall (Mr Fitzgibbon), charged William Parkes (Mr Herdman) with having assaulted him at Wellington on September 2ist. After hearing the evidence, his Worship dismissed tho information, allowing defendant jCI Is costs against plaintiff. CIVIL BUSINESS. Judgment was entered for plaintiff in defendant's default in the following cases:—Maurice Lyons v. M. E. Forth, «£5 IGs 2d (c£l 3s Gd); .lames Ashcroft, Official Assignee in Bankruptcy of the property of Henry Josiah Oakley v. George Greeks, <£l 5s 3d, costs ss; Alfred Bonks v. Alfred Chorley, costs only (10s); Dresden Piano Company r. William Bishop, .£l3 11s, costs =£l 10s Gd; the same v. Allan Cleland, «Cls' 12s 4d, costs £1 10s Gel; G. Gilmour v. Albert S. Hutchison, c£2 Os 2d, costs 10s. Charles Fleming was ordered to pay to Frank S. Pound the sum of .£G 12s 6d on or before October 11th, in default seven days' imprisonment. . IS A PRIVATE HOTEL A SHOP ? AN INTERESTING JUDGMENT. Judgment was delivered in the case of Charles E. Aldridge (Mr Stout) v. George Pinnock (Mr Herdman). His Worship said : This is an information laid by an Inspector of Factories in Wellington against the defendant in that he being tho occupier of a shop within the meaning of the Shops and Offices Act, 1901 (the Trocadero Cafe), did employ certain shop assistants, and did fail to allow them a half-holiday from Ip.m. on any working day in the week ending August 24th, 19G7. Mr Herdman admits that the girls employed were waitresses, and were not allowed a half-holiday during the week. He contends, however, that the defendant's establishment is not a shop, and that, therefore, the persons named in the information are not shop assistants. He further contends that, upon an examination of tho provisions of tlho Act, the establishment does not come under the provisions, but is exempt. It was given in evidence, and admitted by the defendant, that meals were supplied at all hours in the establishment, from 6 a.m. till midnight. The definition of "shop" is any building or place in which goods are kept or exposed or offered for sale. In Le Cren v. Jones (No. 162, vol. XIV., Journ. Dept, of Labour), I held that a place where meals are supplied and sold is a shop within the meaning of the Act, and I see no reason to alter that opinion. Mr Herdman contends that lender the Act there are two classes of shops, one coming under the provisions of section 4 and one under the provisions of section 15. The defendant does not come under section 4, and counsel contends that if he supplies lodging as well *as meals, he does not come under section 15. He relies on the word.

“exclusively'' in section 15 (a.) (1.), and contends that the defendant is exempt from the. provisions of the statute. I do not think the fact ot supplying lodging as well as meals takes the defendant outside of section 15. Many of the ordinary refreshment rooms advertise meals so much, beds so much. Defendant cannot be said to come under the Licensing Acts, and, in my opinion, his establishment is a refreshment room, and does not change its character by reason of the fact that lodging is supplied. I consider that the persons named in the information are shop-assist-ants, who come under the provisions of section 15 of the Act, and are entitled to a weekly half-holiday after the hour of I p.m. on one working day. The information will be sustained, and the defendant fined £2 and costs. Leave to appeal was granted, the security being fixed at -€lO 10s.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM19070928.2.10

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 6326, 28 September 1907, Page 4

Word Count
2,062

COURT REPORTS. New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 6326, 28 September 1907, Page 4

COURT REPORTS. New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 6326, 28 September 1907, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert