SUPREME COURT.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 270, 18 December 1914, Page 10

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SESSION, ECHO OF CUSTOMS FRAUDS. GUABANTOBS HELD RESPONSIBLE In the Supreme Court this morning his Honour Mr Justice Denniston delivered his reserved judgment in the ease of the King (Mr S. G. Raymond, K.C.) v. W. H.. Turnbull and N. L. Macbeth (Mr Weston). The claim" was for £B6 11/11, under a fidelity bond entered into by the defendants guaranteeing to the Customs Department the integrity of one H. L. Owen, the proprietor of a bonded store at Lyttelton. Inter alia, it was guaranteed that Owen would not allow goods to be removed from his store until duty had been paid on them, but he had allowed this to be done, and had since been convicted by the Supreme Court of complicity in frauds on the Customs Department. The Crown' therefore claimed from the defendants, I ias Owen's guarantors, the sum of £B6 j 11/11, being duty unpaid on certain goods wrongfully removed from his j store. When the case was heard, coun-j sel for the defendants argued that the guarantors were absolved from their bond because the frauds of which Owen had been guilty had been carried out by him in collusion with one Hill, an officer in the Customs Department, and therefore a servant oi the Crown. His Honour then said that he could not uphold that eontentioa, but as his judgment might rule future cases he Would put it into writing. In the course of his written judg-' ment, his Honour said that he could find no authority to support the defendants ' contention. Any action on the part of the plaintiff's servant acting in eollusion with Owen djd not absolve the guarantors from their liability under the bond. Judgment would accordingly be for the plaintiff, with costs.

DISPUTE OVER AN INVENTION. His Honour also delivered his reserved judgment in the case of Isaac J. Moore v. the Moore Patent Mantle Co., Ltd., a claim for specific performance. Mr P. Wilding, K.C., with him Mr A. Donnelly, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr E. Harper for.-the defendant company. - •

The plaintiff was the inventor of a substance used for strengthening gas mantles, and he sold to the defendant company his interest in his patent, giving the company a recipe for the preparation of the mixture. It was eiaimed by the company that the substance made in accordance with the formula given them did not give the "same results as the mixture prepared by-the plaintiff, and demonstrated to them before the formation of the company. As against the plaintiff's claim for specific performance and its agreement to purchase his. invention, and to complete payment for it, the company counter-claimed for damages and the cost of taking out new patents rendered necessary by the fact that the plaintiff had not given theni„the correct formula. His Honour said that there had been no misrepresentation on the part of the plaintiff, for who he entered judgment on the claim. The defendant company was non-suited on its counterclaim. The plaintiff was allowed costs on the middle scale. A LAND CASE. *

Ilia Honour Mr .'Justice Sim heard the ease of Duncan McMillan v. William Morrow, a claim an injunction restraining the defendant from threatening to sell a property under the terms