SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11598, 5 December 1899, Page 8

SUPREME COURT.

' CIVIL SITTINGS. > Monday, December 4. . . '. '' - (Before His .Honor Mr Justice Williams.) MOKITZSSN Y. HOPKIN. . .' An action; for damages for alleged breach of contract, and for an injunction. . . ■ • Mr Solomon appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Sim for the defendant. ■

Mr Solomsn said that this was a case which was an action for an injunction .and for damages from breach of contract in connection with the dissolution of the partnership which had previously existed between. the parties, who had since come to terms on the matter. The'arrangement arrived at was that the plaintiff's claim for damages should be withdrawn, and that the defendant should consent to judgment for an injunction in terms of the interim injunction already granted. The .question of costs had been arranged. '. .. !>

. Mr Sim intimated that he consented to judgment upon the terms mentioned. , . - ■ .

. His Honor minuted that the interim injunction be mads perpetual, and-that the costs be paid in terms of the agreement made between the parties. \ • '•' '■' ;' - " BOOSEY V. POTTER. . ..."■';■' Actions for damages in connection with the breach pf the copyright law, by unauthorised productions of the opera "ha, Mascotte."

Mr. Solomon appeared- for the plaintiff, and Mr Finch for the defendant. .'.•'.■

Mr Solomon said that these actions—there were twe-^had been instituted by Messrs Williamson and Musgrove, as agents for Mr Boosey, the proprietor of the opera of "La Mascotte." One case was for a percentage of the profits realised by the Oamaru. Dramatic Company, and in the other case the sum of 40s was: claimed by way of statutory damages under the copyright laws of Englandand New Zealand: The actions were brought separately in order to endeavour to cover all the rights the plaintiffs would have under these two separate statutes; for' he need hardly point out that there was considerable difficulties in recovering ,the royalties- due to the proprietors of an opera. The actidhs were instituted, not only to protect the plaintiff's rightsi but as a warning to amateur companies in New Zealand that they must not recklessly infringe those rights. The defendant in this case1" had recognised his liability, and consequently they would not have to trouble the court in the matter. The terms of settlement were that in the first case, which was an action for account, the defendants were to pay the plaintiff the sum of 25gs,and ;E3O costs. This juSgment represented royalties for five nights at £5 5s per night' for the unauthorised, production, and jn the other case the action would be discontinued » without costs."'...'■' . . '■'-■■■

Mr Finch consented to judgment being entered as stated.. '

His Honor e?itered judgment for the plaintiff accordingly."': "" ",

WALTER. ALEX. SCOTT (OF DTJNEDIN) V. E. J. STOUT (LIMITED) (OF BIRMINGHAM). "~

Claim £229 2s lOd for shortage, overcharges, and damaged goods in connection with a shipment of bicycles by the defendant company, to the plaintiff. ' ' ' '

■ Mr Sim appeared for'the plaintiff, and Mr Hosking for the defendant company. The claim in this case was made up of a considerable number' ol small' items in connection with an order given in February, 1897, and executed by the defendant company. The order was given by Mr Scott to Mr E.J. Stout, but was handed over to and executed by the firm of. E. J. Stout (Limited), the concern having beea formed into a company. In connection- with this' shipment it was alleged that Romp of the goods were short-shipped, that others were damaged, and that in respect to some. there had been overcharges, and the total ■of loss arising from these causes was ; £229 2s lOd, the sum the plaintiff now sought to recover. The defence set up was that the defendant company had acted simply as indent agents charging a commission for their services, that the goods had not been purchased from the defendants, and that it was not in the course of their business to sell and supply such goods, but that they had obtained the goods for the plaintiff as indent agents, and for so doing had charged the usual commission. The defendant company also denied that the goods were short-shipped, that they wore manufactured of bad material or by bad workmanship, or that any parts were incomplete, but alleged that the plaintiff had accepted delivery and paid for the goods, and had made no complaint of any kind with respect thereto, and that, neither the plaintiff nor anyone on his behalf had offered to show the defendant company or their agents any' of the alleged damage or\ defective goods obtained through the defendant company with particulars thereof.

Evidence was given by the plaintiff, V. A. Scott, who was cross-examined and re-examined, after which the further hearing of the case was adjourned until the following day. The court rose at 5 p.m.