SINGULAR CLAIMS

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 257, 25 July 1919, Page 8

SINGULAR CLAIMS

ALLEGED ILLEGAL ADVERTISEMENT

r- PUBLISHERS SUED By Telegraph—Press Association. Christchurch, July 24. A jlittle over a fortnight ago an advertisement appearing in Christchurcb newspapers olfered ''a bigger reward than their value" for certain goods "taken from my car," adding that no questions would bo asked. To-day in the Magistrate's Court that advertisement formed the basis, of a series of singular claims against tho person whose name appeared /-■below- it and against threo city daily papers. By section 2JI of the Justices .vofrthe Peace Act, 1908,. publication of , certain advertisements renders the parties -concerned- liable to forfeit tho sum of , i£so to any person suing for.it by action ' ; o'f debt. "It was under that section that the four claims wore brought to-day, bu.t all of the claimants were nonsuited. ...- .The, advertisement concerned. appeared " as follows on July 9:—"Taken from my car,on Saturday night, <it 212 Kilmora

Street, Chrictohu-rch, a new suit of ■pyjamas, military overcoat, 'and several collars. Any person returning above nrtioles will secure a ; bigger reward than their value. No questions asked. A. J. Tutton, Bangiora."' Section 231 of the Justices of the Peace Act has reference "■ to the' restitution of property. It states ; that everyone—(aj Who publicly advertises a reward for • the return of any . property; whatsoever which has been stolen or lost, an-i in such adyertisemenl ■uses any' words purporting tha* no questions will , be . asked;

or (b) who mates use of

words in any public advertisement pur-'•-■porting -that-a reward will be given or

, paid.for any property which has been "stolen"oi'"lost without seizing or making .any inquiry after the person producing such' property; or (c) who promises or offers in any public advertisement to return to any pawnbroker or other person ■who may have 'bought or advanced money by way of loan upon any property stolen or lost, the money so paid or advanced, or any other sum of money 'or reward for' the return of suck . property, or.(d) who prints or publishes '..any such"a3vertisenient, shall be liable ■' to forfeit the sum of ,£SO for every sucli offence to any person who sues for the ■eaine by action of debt, to be recovered with .full costs of the suit. ' The first claim'called was that of John Shaw v. the "Lyttelton Times" . Company. Mr. CS. Thomas appeared for the claimant, and Mr. George Harper for the defendant company. ■ i Thomas Eobson, printer and publisher of the "Lyttelton Times," admitted having printed and published the 'issue of July 9 containing' tho advertisement challenged. • ;.This was the whole of the claimant's

.-.case. ~ ../ ilr. Harper, in defence, said that this j, was an action by a common informer, . who did not appear. . He merely sought to put into his: own pocket the sum of . £50, plus" costs. It was unfortunate" that ; in'connection with such matters as this the law here had not kept pace with , British . legislation. There, as far back ~as 1870,.an Act had been passed amending the previous Act on this matter, which had been ns ours still was, by .. providing that .the. action 'must bo brought within a period of six months after the commission of the offence, and then not until the consent of the At- ,,■ or Solicitor-General had. ?'■ been ..obtained- in, writing.: In the.preamendment it was stated ' thaf'wliereas the old law had given occasion to many 'vexatious proceedings against printers and publishers of newe- ■ paper's, it was expedient to discourage etich practices. His first point was this, ■ the Act stated that « man must sue for the fine, and no one was appearing in "the bos to,sue this morning. This sum was recoverable by action of debt, in which case plaintiff had to appear in person to apply for judgment. This was what was"called a "penal action," quite distinct altogether from an ordinary; ''criminal action." The nchou wa» brought presumably by a man of the > -name .ofcShaw. They did not .know who Shaiv was. Hβ might be a' "man of straw." On. that point he submitted - ; that the-action must be dismissed. , i\ Hr. "Thomas characterised his friend's argument as weak and flimsy. The Act ./mid ; that, the person entitled to the .£SO ■ w<as the person who sued, and Shaw had sued.. He had signed the plaint note, /,.and.it wag not necessary for him to appear in tho box. The act of suing was , the act;;?! signing tho plaint note, and .','iiotl the.act of going into the box to action. The only'thing wanted after the claim was a simple proof ... of -. the printing and publishing. '; ""Why do you make a' distinction,' Mr. Harper," asked the Magistrate, "between this case and any other civil case?" ■ • '"_. Mr. Harper replied that he had made j'tjiis '.point because x it was his duty to , press, e-very. point, since this iras a miserable'.sort of case to bring, and one the .like' of which nevor should have been ■■'.'brought." However, the™ was a further ,objection.. There was no suggestion in 'the. advertisement that the goods had ■V.biJen'stbleh. It w?ad simply "Taken from '/.my, bar , ."'lf the advertisement had eaid ' t ,ihat the goods had been lost or stolen, it would v hii've been incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove such theft or loss, but now-there was no proof. This was such a singular case that he .could find only about two others mentioned , in the n> ports. In both of those the M'liaßies had been afterwards remitted, but all tho details could not be found.

Mr. Thomas replied 'that to siggest that the insertion of this advertisement did not suggest that the goods had" been stolen from the car was ridiculous. If they had been taken with Tutton's consent he would not have inserted the advertisement', tailing off wit,h "no qnes-.-ttons asked." Nor would he have offered a bigger reward than their value. The Magistrate upheld Mr Harper's contention. Upon consideration it did seem necessary that there should first of all be proof that the articles had been stolen. A mere advertisement i,i tlio paper, even if it did directly state that an article had been stolon or lost, was no proof of theft. There was nothing to .prevent one person from writing Such an ■advertisement in another's name, getting some .unsuspecting newspaper to accept it,, and then turning; common informer ■without any goods having been stolen at all.- The first essential of the claim was to prove, that the articles had been slolen or lost. So far as he at present know judicially, Tutfon had neither lost his goods nor had them (stolen. .'■" iicreforc the claimant would be nonsuited.

. Mr. T. J. Alpors, who appeared for the defendant company in the claim ot David Andrew, asked 'Hint judgment Bhould be entered for the defendant.

Mr. F. D. Sargent, as the other counsel for the claimant, quite disagreed with Mr. Harper's contention that were in any way improper cases. It eeemed a scandalous thing that newspapers should The Magistrate: We don't want that 'discussed just now. Mr. Sargent: A scandalous thins Hint an advertisement of this.sort, which fiays Ihnt any person relurnim: i.lm avticl<;s will receive a bigger reward than their value, and I am instructed that Tutton is a J.P. and should have known hotter. The Magistrate: We don't want that discussed just now. Mr. Sargent's application for an adjournment wns refused, and the claimant was nonsuited. In tho two remaining, claims, Onnn v A. .T. Tutton, and John O'Neil v. the Canterbury Publishing Company (proprietors of the "Sun") nonsuits were also entered.