A PATENT CLUTCH.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17038, 11 May 1923, Page 11

A PATENT CLUTCH.

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. Judgment was giv>©Ji for defendant by his Honor >lr .) uatioe Adams, in the Supreme Court to-diuv in a oa»e brought by Ai-tihur Rainsfojd Craddock. farmetp against William Scott, engineer, a claim for accounts and payment- of a sum plaintiff a-lleged was due to him. The case arose out of the- manufacture of a patent friction olfitch.. used on separators. Scott is the patentee and he has been manufacturing the clutches since February., 1920. receiving about £7OO a year from tlveir Bale to Maqgp, Struthers and Co, Otaddock claimed that he wof joint inventor with Scott, surd that there -was an arrangement between Scot-t and him, b.V which he was entitled to share in the net profits. His Honor said that- the evidence had failed to establish Craddock’s claim. Taking Craddock’s evidence as substantially ccwxeot, it amounted to no more than that the invention was the joint invention of Craddock and Soott. that the patent, by agreement, was taken out in Sfcott’fe name for their joint benefit, and that the profits were divided between them as long as the firm of A. R, Craddock ami Co. continued to hoR and manufacture the clutches. Craddock alleged that agreement was -entered into in February, 1920. that Scott should manufacture the dutches *ind that the profits, after payment of the cost of manufacture, should be divided between Craddock and Scott. That would not constitute a contract, as Scott was entitled to manufacture the clutches without Craddock’s consent.

In the same case. Craddock and Co., which practically is? A. R. Craddock claimed from Scott possession of machinory used by Scott in manufacturing the clutches, err £4OO, and £75 damages for wrongful d eteilfc * on - In regard to that dlaitn bis Honor gave judgment for Oraddook and Co. for the delivery of possession of th© or for £B3O, a valuation agreed upon, aaid £9 damages, with costa as per scale. HTs Honor allowed £lO 10s for second counsel and costs of discovery £4 4s. In Craddock v. Scott, bi* allowed costs to defendant on the lowest Beale £lO IQ* for tecond eouneel. and £4 4 s ooats of Mjt O. T. J, Alpers. with him Mr J. R. Cuningham, appealed for plaintiff. and Mr O- S. Thomas for defendant.