Important Conviction.

Progress, Volume I, Issue 8, 1 June 1906, Page 193

Important Conviction.

The recent conviction of a well-known gram and produce merchant in Auckland, on a charge of having— (t) fraudulently imitated, in a manner calculated to deceive, the registered trade mark of the Gisborne Frozen Meat Co., and (2) that on or about the same date 1 he unlawfully sold certain manure to which a false trade-mark description wae applied, and (3) that on or abont the came date he applied a false trade description to crrtam goods,'' is full of significance to those who would

fraudulently, or even negligently, seek to evade the protection granteJ the public under The Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Act. The facts of this case should find record in the columns of Progress, and are, briefly" — The accused was a merchant in a large way of business, and he sold manure in the bags of the Gisborne Frozen Meat Co., Ltd. The counsel for the defence explained this away by stating that the manure came in bags from Gisborne, and as they were very often in an unfit condition to send the manure out again in, the difficulty was got over by imitating the brand of the Gisborne Frozen Meat Co. on the bags refilled. It was further argued for the defence that the difference in the cost of the two manures handled was infinitesimal, viz. ■ about £2 for every 2 tons. His Honour, in passing sentence, regarded the offence as a very serious one, and indicted a fine of /500 01, in default, one year's imprisonment with hard labour. The Court considered it was quite an apparent fraud to substitute one manure for another by a person who knew what he was about, moreover by a person in a large wav of business, and a wealthy man. The difference in value of the two manures did not affect the enormity of the offence, for the Court was inclined to think that a merchant, who had held so high a pOoition, should be absolutely above suspicion of such a deliberate and contemptible fraud, and that that kind of thing must be put down. Commenting further, His Honour r lied that the difference in value was b] T no means so small as might appear on the surface, for the result of a fraud of this description might be what a man might lose in the value of his land and the next year's crops.