86
for the Lieutenant-Governor to reserve a Bill having such an object for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure, on the ground that it would be an infringe- ment of the Royal prerogative.
As to the mode of proving, in the Supreme Court of this Colony, Patents granted in Great Britain, I would first observe, that the point has never arisen bere, and therefore I cannot state the law as settled by practice, but only what I conceive would be held to be the law if the case should arise. I apprehend that the Patent itself would readily be proved by an exemplification under the Great Seul, But in any action for the infringement of a Patent it would be necessary to prove, not only the Letters- Patent, but also the sufficiency of the specification; and I think, in the present state of the law, great difficulties would be encountered in giving such proof. The specification being enrolled or filed in
the Court of Chancery in England, could only be proved here by an office, or examined, copy, which would necessitate the attendance of a witness from England, or a Commission to examine witnesses there. And it does not appear to me that the difficulty is obviated by the statute 14 & 15 Vict., cap. 99, for the amendment of the Law of Evidence, or the "Patents Amendment Act, 1852" (15 & 16 Vict., cap. 83). The former statute renders docu- ments which are admissible in evidence in the Courts of England and Ireland, without proof of seal or signature, equally admissible in Colonial Courts; but I am not aware of any law which renders speci- fications so admissible in evidence in the Courts of England or Ireland. It is true that the 33rd section of the "Patents Amendment Act," before referred to, makes copies of specification printed by the Queen's printers prima facie evidence, without proof, in the Courts of England and Ireland; but I think it very doubtful whether the former statute (the Law of Evidence Amendment Act") would
he held to apply to such documents; inasmuch as
it seems to be confined to documents having some
seal or official signature.
For the foregoing reasons, I think that no sufficient facilities at present exist for rendering a Patent granted in England, extending to this Colony, available by proof within the Colony; and that if it be deemed desirable to give such facilities,
TASMANIA.
Governor, No. 14. February 5, 1857.
TASMANIA.
Governor, No. 14. February 5, 1857.
87
perhaps the simplest mode would be to enact that, upon the application of the patentee, or his assignee, within a certain time, the Commissioners of Patents for Inventions (under the "Patents Law Amendment Act, 1852") shall transmit, or cause to be trans- mitted, to the Lieutenant-Governor, to be sent by him to the Registrar to be filed in the Supreme Court (or the transmission might be to the Registrar direct); and that such Letters-Patent and specifica- tion produced by the Registrar shall be evidence in the Colonial Courts without further proof.
The transmission by, as by the authority of, the Commissioners, would be a sufficient guarantee for the authenticity of the documents in all cases; and, of course, the Registrar could not file
but such any as had been so transmitted.
As to the expediency of the grant of Patents
in England extending to this Colony, that is a question rather of policy than of law.
At the present time it appears to me to be a question of no practical importance, as the deficiency
of labour, and absence of other facilities for manu- factures, even of the simplest kind, renders it extremely improbable that any attempt at infringe- ment of a Patent, or competition with Great Britain in any kind of manufacture, can be successfully made in this Colony for many years to come.
On principle, however, I see no reason why an inventor should not be protected in the Colonies, as well as in Great Britain, in the enjoyment of the privilege secured to him by the Patent as a reward for the benefit bestowed upon mankind by his iuvention.
F. SMITH, Jun.
June 14, 1853.
Having had the advantage of conferring with my colleague upon the subject raised by the circular despatch transmitted for our opinion, and having arrived at the same conclusion with him on the various points submitted, it is only necessary that I
should express my entire concurrence in the answers returned by him to the queries propounded for our consideration.
June 27, 1853.
V. FLEMING, Attorney-General's Chambers.
2 A
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference -
C.O-885
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO