SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2728, 27 June 1906, Page 15

SUPREME COURT.

Wednesday, Jtike 20. I (Before Mr Justice Cooper.) [ Bt'ST V. CHEI3TIE. The case of A. and T. Burt v. J. and T. Christie, clnim fcr alleged infringement of a. patent skylight, waa continued. Mr Hosking, with, him Mr A. §. Adstms, for the plaintiffs; Mr Solomon, with him Mr W. C. MacGregor, for the defendants. Mr Hosking, moving for judgment, dealt at length with tho evidence on tha point of infringement, urging that Biotseis shown in. court clearly proved that cefersdants' skylight ■was an infringement of plaintiffs' pat-eat. { Mr A. S. Adams followed for plaintiffs. | Mr Solomon contended that it waa essential ' to ascertain what plaintiffs' patent was for. • For that purpose the specification must te ■ read with ordinary buainess-liko intelligence, in view of th? ftate of knowledge that uuqve^ticr.abiy existed as to cho etticlcs at the time when tha specification was framed. Tho essence of the plaintiffs' patent from tha commoEcement waa that it was a, puttyless skylight. That feature was insisted on by the patentee as a primary advantage of the skylight. The defendants' skylight used putty, and the evidence showed that this putty was nsed in bona fides for a definite purpose. Plsuitiffs had not proved st all that defendants had arrived at the same result as J plaintiffs by the same method. The methods were materially different. Mr W. C MacGregor followed for defendants. Addresses of counsel on these points and. the general aspect occupied most of the day. . Counsel went minutely into the evidence, and • made frequent reference to various model* produced in court. Hl3 Honor reserved judgment.