The Photographic Case

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.
Civil Cases.— Carl Gersten Korn v. Eden George, claim .£8O. Mr Joynt for plaintiff; Mr Holmes for defendant. Plaintiff had been a photographic dry-plate manufacturer for three years in Sydney, and was constantly at work. In February last (1888) George called on him in Sydney, having written to him on August 30, 1887, asking him on what terms he would come to New Zealand. Defendant wrote on Oct. 1 (1887) asking what price plaintiff would charge for lessons, and suggesting that for £20 plaintiff should send over particulars of his process. Defendant again wrote on March 20 (1888). Several letters had passed, and witness then wrote to say he was coming to Christchurch, bringing his plant and 14lb of gelatine (Hendrieks and Kelson's). Witness arrived in the beginning of July (1888), and began work the latter end of the month. [left Sitting.]
Star , Issue 6414, 6 December 1888, Page 3



The Photographic Case.
THIS DAY
(Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M.)
The case of Gerstenkorn v. Eden George was resumed at the Provincial Council Chamber this morning at 10.30. Mr Joynt called — Fyfe, formerly operating artist for Mr George: Both witness and defendant operated with a large number of the eighteen dozen trial batch of plates. They made good pictures. They were very rapid, but if over developed became , very dense. Over development would be the fault of the operator. Could not desire better plates than most of plaintiff's that witness worked with. Cross-examined by Mr Holmes: Had seen Ilford plates develop green fog. Charles Henry Manning, photographer, of eighteen years experience: Had tried the "Eden" plates. Found them very good indeed. [left sitting.]
Star, Issue 6424, 19 December 1888, Page 3



The Photographic Case.
This Day. (Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M.) This ease was resumed at 10.30 a.m. Mr Holmes opened for the defence, and called E. R. Wheeler, a photographer: Had purchased a dozen plates from defendant, after having tried one which was very good. Found the dozen fearfully fogged. Complained, and got some others from George, but they were just as bad. Ordered no more. There was often a touch of green fog, which did not interfere with printing. The fog in some of the plates produced could not be got rid of, and would interfere with the printing. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt: The plates were surprisingly sensitive. The defects may have been caused by bad manipulation, as well as the original making. The cause of the defects was not light getting on them; there must have been something wrong with the emulsion. Re-examined: Imperfect washing could, not have caused the fog.
Harry Batchelor, engaged at Kempthorne, Prosser, and Co.'s: Had sold Mr George no gelatine. Had sold him absolute alcohol
William Sorrel, and Albert Noble also gave evidence. [Left Sitting.]
Star, Issue 6425, 20 December 1888, Page 3



THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S DISPUTE.
Gerstenkorn v. Eden George
The hearing of this case was resumed at the Police Court, at 10.30 a.m. to-day, before C. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M.
John French, examined by Mr Holmes, gave evidence to the effect that he had developed negatives at Eden George's establishment which turned out to be green-fogged, and identified several of them. One that had been put into the plaintiff's own developer was worse than the others. None of the plates developed in the presence o£ the three expert witnesses were unfit for pictures.
To Mr Joynt: With the exception of the trial batch first made by plaintiff and a batch of nine gross, which were bad, the plates were good.
Mr Joynt here subjected the witness to a vigorous cross-examination as to his change of demeanour during the progress of the case, during which it came out that witness had said he expected to give Mr George offence by his evidence. James Heslop, a retired photographer, said he had been in the trade nineteen years. Saw Messrs French, Wheeler and Chatteris that morning, and saw the plates taken out of the box and put through the developer slide according to plaintiff's formula. The plates produced had no mercantile value, because they were green-fogged and no good for negatives.
Minnie Hooper gave a description of the various rooms in Mr George's establishment, and the processes through which the photographs went in each. She worked in all the rooms, packed and sorted plates, and assisted in making the emulsion. Plaintiff worked close to her (witness) in this room. Once plaintiff pinched witness in this room. He frequently chased witness and her companion when they were engaged in the coatingroom, and frequently pinched and squeezed them. On two occasions he had caught hold of witness' legs under her clothes. She was going upstairs. He had done this intentionally, as he had no necessity to come near them or interfere with them while at work. He had caused witness to scream when he touched her on the leg, and he threatened, if witness made a noise, to turn her away from the factory. In the dark room they carried a dark ruby lantern, but in the front room there was a window. One of the batches of plates was spoilt because, as Miss Allison was carrying the rack upstairs, plaintiff had interfered with her, and she opened the lamp. Plaintiff had told witness afterwards that there was too much light on that batch. Running round in the coating room raised dust,and spots were left on the plates. On the Tuesday after plaintiff left and Miss Allison had complained to Mr George of plaintiff's conduct. Had not complained before, because they had not an opportunity of seeing him except in the plaintiff's company, and he had threatened to discharge them both if they made any complaint.
To Mr Joynt: Witness had told Mr George on the Tuesday evening, after plaintiff left, part of plaintiff's behaviour, but had not said anything about Miss Allison having opened the lamp on the staircase. The plaintiff had continued this behaviour from a few weeks after they had been at the factory till he left. Witness was sixteen years of age. They had not complained to Mr George of the plaintiff's behaviour before because they were afraid of losing their employment. On the following Thursday Mr George sent for witness and Miss Allison to his office, and they had then told him all about plaintiffs behaviour to them and the way the light was let in to the plates. Re-examined by Mr Holmes: The door of the drying-room opens on to the stairs, and if white light was let on to the stair it would enter the drying-room. The door was generally left open to assist in the drying. On the day following that on which the plaintiff left the factory, witness and Miss Allison had told Mr George how he had behaved without any prompting or suggestion from him. Had told him very little then, as it was late, but gave him full particulars on the Thursday. The corners of the plates were broken off through putting them into their places in a hurry. They had sometimes to hurry because plaintiff detained them during the day. Witness and Miss Allison had both been retained in the employ of the defendant at the studio since the factory had been closed. [Left sitting.]
Star, Issue 6428, 24 December 1888, Page 3



THE PHOTOGRAPHIC CASE.
Gerstenkorn v. George. This case was resumed before C. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M., at the Provincial Council Chamber.
Mr Joynt appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Holmes for the defendant. Eden George, defendant, examined by Mr Holmes: Bought plaintiff's formula and a small copper for £13. Plaintiff arranged to come from Sydney to take the management of a dry-plate factory. Witness sent £70 to his father for plaintiff's passage, &c. Produced correspondence. One letter was so offensive that witness refused to employ plaintiff when the latter arrived here. Plaintiff expressed regret, and witness made a weekly engagement with him. The witness detailed the history of the dry plates made, by the plaintiff. (Left Sitting.)
Star , Issue 6457, 29 January 1889, Page 3



THE PHOTOGRAPHERS' CASE.
Gerstenkorn v. George. Mr Joynt for plaintiff; Mr Holmes for defendant. This case was resumed in the Provincial Council Chambers at 10.30 a.m., when Mr Joynt began the cross-examination of the defendant. Witness would not go so far as to swear that he had not written "for three months," but was confident that he had not. Would have taken a note of it if he had. The slope of the writing was different from his usual writing, and the t's were not crossed. Started crossing his t's about twelve months ago. Would say that the "3" in "three months" and the" 3" in "from the 30th" were not written by the same person. [Left sitting.]
Star , Issue 6462, 4 February 1889, Page