DISPUTE OVER RABBIT GAME.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18640, 18 December 1928, Page 10

DISPUTE OVER RABBIT GAME.

OWNER TELLS COURT HOW MACHINES RUN “ STRAIGHT-OUT RACE.” Two owners of amusement machines were at variance in the Magistrate’s Court to-day, before Mr H. A. Young, S.M. Jesse M’Corkindale, of 233, Ferry Road, described as an amusement caterer, claimed the sum of £76 15s from Vivian Claude Parker, showman, of Oamaru. The statement of claim set out that b- agreement on December 24, 1927, plaintiff agreed to sell to defendant a rabbit amusement plant complete. The price of £4OO included £246 10s cash. A pavment of £76 15s was stipulated for on or before August 30, 1928, and another payment of £76 15s on or before November 30, 1928. Defendant, it was alleged, refused and neglected to pay the instalment of £76 15s on August 30, 1928. s Defendant counter-claimed £153 10s from plaintiff, and in doing so stated that by the agreement referred to plaintiff agreed that so long as defendant should be in possession of, and operating, the rabbit amusement plant, plaintiff should not operate, in his own name or that of anyone else, any other rabbit plant of a like nature: nor should he allow any other person to operate the plant in New Zealand. It was alleged by defendant that plaintiff had broken the agreement in that he had carried on, and permitted others to carry on, a rabbit amusement plant, thereby causing a falling-off in defendant’s takings. Mr Twyneham appeared for plaintiff and Mr Tracy for defendant. Rabbits and Donkeys. Jesse M’Corkindale, plaintiff, said that he carried on business in various parts of New Zealand. The price of the rabbit plant was £4OO. At the time of the signing of the agreement plaintiff had a plant similar to the one sold to defendant. It was worked generally by a man named Pitcher, who went into partnership with defendant. To Mr Tracy plaintiff said that he had operated a machine similar to defendant’s at Invercargill in May. At that time defendant's machine was in the Thames district. Later defendant’s machine had worked at the same show as had defendant’s, at Hamilton. In the photographs of the machines (produced) rrbbits ran up the board in one case and donkeys ran along the board in the other case. The movement of the donkeys was a straight-out race, while the rabbits travelled at a different speed and created more amusement. Mechanically, there was no difference between the machines. Mr Tracy produced a telegram from plaintiff to defendant in which plaintiff said that he was going to use a machine with electrically-driven racehorses, and gave defendant a chance to sell his machine back to plaintiff at the price paid tor it. Mr Tracy: You were going to use racehorses also? Plaintiff: No, the animals were halfway between racehorses and donkeys, and were called donkeys. Shown at Christchurch. Plaintiff admitted that he ran his machine at the same functions as defendant did, at Palmerston North (twice), Christchurch (twice), Wellington, Hastings, and Carterton. Addressing the Court, Mr Tracy described plaintiff’s action as an unscrupulous swindle. The man Pitcher, who was the only one in M’Corkindale’s employ who could operate the machine, had been deliberately enticed away by plaintiff with the idea of ruining da fendant and getting the machine back. Plaintiff had run his machine in opposition to defendant, thus splitting the profits.

“Plaintiff might have cut off one of the rabbit’s ears and called it an Angora goat, but that makes no difference to the fact that the two machines are substantially the same,” continued Mr Tracy. “Defendant’s profits have dwindled down to nothing.” Defendant, in answer to Mr Twyneham, said that the rabbit game had been first shown at the Dunedin Exhibition, where it was very popular. Defendant believed that plaintiff had patent rights over the rabbit machines. The rabbit game was the best attraction of any show. The movement of the animals, their antics, and the excitement of operating them, were the chief appeals to the public. Mr Twyneham: About the “Charlie Chaplin” game. Hasn’t that been in opposition to you? Defendant: Yes. Mr Twyneham: And hasn’t it the same mechanism?

“No,” replied defendant, who admitted that he had not seen the game. To Mr Twyneham, defendant said that he had made no arrangements with plaintiff for Pitcher’s services. Pitcher rather let defendant down, and defendant, in a telegram to plaintiff, said that Pitcher had double-crossed him. Mr Tracy produced a book in which it was shown that defendant had made a loss of £36 at Hamilton, a profit of £l3 at Palmerston North, a profit of £3O at Stratford, a loss of £8 at Hastings, and an advance of £2 of profits over expenses at the Christchurch Show. Defendant stated that for a five days’ show, when he was employed with plaintiff on the one machine, the takings were about £BOO.

(Proceeding.)