The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1893-09-15
COURT CHRONICLE.
Supreme Court Decision on q Patent
Case.
FIRST PATENT SUIT IN HAWAII.

Supreme Court Decision on Patent
FIRST PATENT SUIT IN HAWAII.
A unanimous decision of the Su-
preme Court, prepared by Justice
Frear, has been rendered in the
patent case of The Risdon Iron &
Locomotive Works VS.. Alexander
Young. Plaintiff claimed that de-
PENDANT infringed patent in auto
matte feed rolls for sugar mill fur
naces, and the case came before the
Court on an amicable submission OF
facts. The Court decides that Mr..
Young did not infringe the patent.
f. NJ. Hatch for plaintiff; A. S. Hart
we'll for defendant. This is the first
patent decision ever rendered in the
Hawaiian Islands.
Following are the principles
adopted in the decision.
"a patent for a combination is not
infringed by the substitution Of an
element that performs substan-
TALLY different function, or Of one
not known at the date of the patent
as proper substitute for the omit
ted element.
"The burden of proof upon
question of Infringement lies upon
the party alleging infringement.
"The patent raises a presumption
that the device is patentable.
"a device to be patentable need
not perform it's work better than
the same kind of work has previously
been performed.
"a change in the form OF one ele-
ment of patented combination,
though slight, if it works a new and
useful result, may avoid infringe
ment.
"a patent does not cover more
than is claimed, nor more than is
described in such way as to enable
Others to construct it.
infringement of a patent for au-
tomato feed rolls with longitudinal
ribs is not proved by the mere fact
that automatic feed rolls with spiral
ribs with pitch of half the circum-
ference of the rolls have been man
ufactured and Sold"
In the course of their decision the
Court regrets the absence of evil
dence on certain points, leaving
questions that depended on facts
to be settled by the rules of law.
THE FAMOUS PINEAPPLE CASE.
In the case Of P. G.. Camarinos VS..
John Kidwell, relating to pineapples,
a unanimous decision of the Supreme
Court has been rendered, confirming
the verdict of the jury against Kid
we'll. Circuit Judge Cooper sat in
place of Justice Frear, who was dis
qualified from having been of coun-
sci. Neumann and Creighton for
plaintiff; Hatch and Thurston g.
Frear for defendant.
This was an action for damages
for breach of a contract made by
the parties on the 10th April, 1890
wherein Kidwell agreed to sell to
Camarinos for the term of thirty
months from the LIST July, 1890, all
fthe fine quality pineapples, viz
Sugar-loaves, Queens and Smooth
Cayennes grown for sale by Kidwell
the pineapples to weigh three pounds
and upwards and to be delivered al
the store of Camarinos in Honolulu
in good condition. Camarinos was
to pay 35 cents for every such pine
apple delivered in accordance with
the above conditions. At the first
r trial in the Supreme Court at the
January term, 1892, the jury dis
agreed and were discharged. Al
the April term, 1892, the case wa:
retired and the jury 1.-TWO dissenting
found a verdict for the plaintiff
, Camarinos, $512.75 special damages
and $3.50 for probable profits.
: The case came up on appeal undo
two bills of exceptions. One was a
to the ruling Of the trial Justice
allowing an instruction to the jur,
requested by the plaintiff, and The
other as to the Justices refusal t,
grant new trial on the ground tina
the verdict was contrary to the Law
and the evidence.
For eleven months Kidwell de
, livered pineapples to Camarinos i
good condition. Then, according t,
evidence for the plaintiff, pineapple
were damaged either by poisoning
the crown with acid to destroy it
growing power, or thrusting sharl
instrument down into the crown TO
: the same purpose, either of whicl
treatments caused the fruit to deca
and spoil. The defendant denies
having used any corrosive substance
but admitted the use of chisel o
the crown, while the plant was sti
D growing, which he claimed tende
q to increase the size of the fruit an
0 did no damage to the edible part.
Q The jury was instructed that unde
q the contract the defendant was OF
: liged to deliver the plaintiff pine
@ apples which included the fruit wit
the crown, and defendant had n
more right to mutilate the crow
!, than the fruit itself eff this wa
d all that the Court said," tho dec
n sion runs, sit would be erroneou
p for the jury were the judges of til
. question as to what constituted
y pineapple. But in the Courts charg
c it based this instruction that a PIN
g apple included the crown with til
g fruit part, upon the admission {
the defendant that in order to NAL