PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
C.O.
Reference -
885.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
52
Letters-Patent affecting the Colony should not be extended to the Colony, but that the party asking for protection should apply to the Governor and Court of Policy for au Ordinance.
4. What facilities would it be necessary for the legislature to give (supposing no sufficient facilities at present exist) for rendering such a Patent avail- able by proof in the Colonial Courts in case of infringement of the inventor's rights ?
The facilities in this Colony for rendering a Patent available are such as to render it unnecessary for the Legislature to give any others.
I. What is your opinion as to the validity of Letters-Patent granted in Great Britain and ordered by Her Majesty in Council to be enrolled in this this Colony?
Such Letters-Patent are valid, but there can be no doubt of their being so when extended to this Colony by an Order in Council.
2. Is quy case on record in which such Letters- Patent have been disputed in the Courts here, and what was the decision?
I know of no case on record in which such Letters-Patent have been disputed in the Courts here, consequently I know of no, decision on this point. I have known objections taken to Orders in Council being binding here, but such objections have been invariably overruled, I may say scouted, by the Court.
3. Is it obligatory upon the Judges in this Colony to grant an interdict upon any complaint of the infringement of a patentee's rights?
It is discretionary with the Court or Judge to grant an interdict to restrain any wrong or infringe- ment of a right, but such discretion becomes an obligation when the prima facie evidence of the wrong or infringement is so strong as to convince the mind of the Court or Judge of the existence of
a wrong or infringement.
4. Would it be competent to the Supreme Court
to make a rule against granting such interelict until
the patentee had first established the infringement of his rights by action?
I consider the Supreme Court cannot legally make such a rule as the one herein mentioned.
5 In default of the Supreme Court possessing
BRITISH GULANA,
Governor, No. 80, May 6, 1853.
BRITISH GUIANA. Governor, No. 80, May 6, 1853. objection to
BAHAMAS.
53
an enactment
such power, would there be, in your opinion, any to this effect being included in any Ordinance which the Court of Policy may, with the consent of Her Majesty, pass relative to the granting and using of Letters-Patent in this Colony?
I see no objection to any provision to the effect stated being included in any Ordinance passed in the manner and for the purpose stated, and such provisions are in preparation by myself.
6. What difference exists between the law and practice in respect to proceedings as to interdicts in this Colony, and the law and practice of the Court of Chancery at home in regard to injunctions in similar cases?
There exists a good deal of difference between the practice of the Courts of England and of this Colony in injunctions and interdicts, but the prin- ciples of law which govern injunctions in England and interdicts in this Colony are nearly, if not entirely, the same. The proceedings in a matter of injunction in England are more summary and expe- ditious. An interdict once granted in this Colony can only be rejected or dissolved after regular issues are joined, evidence adduced, and the parties heard by counsel.
BAHAMAS.
Mr. Attorney-General Anderson.-No law exists
Governor, No. 52, June 4, 1853. in this Colony for the grant of patents by the local
authorities.
The mode of proving, in the Courts of this Colony, a Patent granted in England would be exactly similar
to the mode of proving such Patent in the Courts in the mother-country, the law of evidence in this Colony being in strict accordance with the law of evidence in England.
Select Committee of the House of Assembly.— The Select Committee, to whom was referred his Excellency the Governor's message No. 23 of the 21st ultimo, together with the circular despatch of 2nd January last from the Under Secretary of State. P