RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4077, 21 March 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tpmdat, Maboh 21. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq,, R.M.)

Maoissey v. W'fce and another.—ln this case, which was-an action to recover L 62 10s !»)le.ed t > be due for compiling and editing rmt’l, of the first volume of the ‘ Colonial Law Journal,’ bis Worshin judgmen . After narrating the facts,, as disclosed by the evidence, the judgment proceeded "On a careful examination of the facts, T|».«i of oninion that the presumption or preponderance of tee* timony is in favor of the plaintiff. (1.) The fact that negotiations were on foot for the employment of a paid editor before the plaintiff went to thwAp* - peal Court, Wellington, in November, about the time the publication appeared, is inconsistent with tne statement that the plaintiff was to oohduot the pei lodical for a whole year. If he had undertaken it for a year why should he suggest three names to the defendant, or negotiate on the subject with one " of thcgentlemen named T Buch negotiation could only.proceed on the ground of immediate employ* meat. (2.) The reason given by the plaintiff for not continuing as editor, namely, that he could not afford the time on account of his business reuniting his whole attention, is intelligible and tent. He had been asked by the defendants to edit an edition of the “ Statutes” shortly before the ‘Law Journal * was talked) of, which he declined doing for the same reasons. If the care of tide Journal required so much time as is admitted; it would interfere seriously with the plaintiff’s ordb nary business, and the.probahility is in favor of Ms statement. A year is a long time in colonial life, and it being admitted that the arrangement forth* plaintiff’s editing Was to be temporary, the proha-D’-lity is in favor of the shorter period, (s!) The defendants’ offer of an acceptance after he knew that the plaintiff would not continue the editing, without any objection stated, is conchuive against him. His explanation that he thought in his own mind be was purchasing the property is unsatisfactory, seeing that he has admitteS that the plaintiff never had any right of property into the Journal. The ownership must be vested somewhere. It was not in the plaintiff, and must therefore 'have been m the defendant, with all its risk of loss or chance of profit. The explanation that the property was to belong to a committee who had no existence and with whom no terms had been made, is unsatisfactory. (•M It is unprobable thatjthe plaintiff with his know, ledge of business would have bound himself for a twelvemonth without a distinct and positive ar-. rangement. ihe acting only for the first number is consistent with the want of any definite arrange* inent. (5.), The letters produced after the first hearing goto strengthen the plaintiff’s case. If there be two ways of interpreting a document, the Court is hound to adopt the one favorable to the writer, 1 think that the plaintiff in writing the Editor of the • . Y* 8 8,0 * n a friendly manner in protecting the interest of the defendants. • The memo, sent on February 24 is capable of no other construction. The defendants’ letter of Brd November to Mr Holmes, in which they say, “The starting of the present Law Journal is entirely due to ourselves—we proposed the publication, and not any of the editors, tells strongly against them. For the reasons stated 1 am of opinion that the pontiff only agreed to edit the first number. As he hasdpne all he agreed to do, he is entitled to reasonable remuneration from the defendants as owners, and therefore liable for all costs. Gratuitous employ*' of so onerous a nature cannot le presumed, and it has not been proved in this instance. The amount sued for Las been proved to be reasonable, and the defendants, when the account was rendered, did not object to the amount charged. I nTn therefore bound to give judgment for the amount against the defendants. The defendants’ connection with the plaintiff os publisher of the latter’s hew Zealand reports was imported into the discussion. I think this has no hearing on the case and need not he alluded to further than to say I have no doubt the success of the reports latterly operated on the defendant’s mind in leading him to start the journal. The discontinuance of that Stable publication by the plaintiff strengthens the •< presumption that lie was not likely to undertake ' tue continuous editing of the journal for a year.' Being aware of the interest the case has excited, I have given fully the grounds of the judgment which seem to me to leave no doubt that, the con* elusion is a right one, although the result may appear to be hard, to the defendants. Judgment for-plaintiff for L 62105, with costs. VI r Harris mentioned that the action bad been b i ought by Mr Macassey merely to assert- & h ;d been denied by the defendants; and it WiS Mr Macassey*s desite that the judgment, less c sta incurred, should be handed over to the treasurer of All Saints’ Church.— Hi' Worship said he could not take any notice - f the appl cation. Lazanio v _ Collar. - Thi? was a claim for LB 6? 6d, involving a point of some importance to" auctioneers Plaintiff had been employed to j act as auctioneer for the a\l« of the property of L one Manning, under a. bill of sale; and when i the bill of sale was satisfied Manning requested hito to continue the sale, which was being held i in the latter's house. Among the purchasers ■ was Collar, who was a creditor of Manning; and the latter agreed that any things he pnri chased should go in reduction of the- debt. ( Allowing for the things purchased, there re* mained a balance in Collar’s favor. Manning left the Province, drawing from Lazarus the procee of the sale, less LSodd, which Manning was to have sent an agent for, but had not done; so.- Lazarus now claimed to recover for the goods purchased by dollar, and the latter put in ns a set off his claim aga‘n*t Manning. It was admitted that Lazarus bad some knowledge of the existence of this claim. His Worship held that the rascally demand of Manning from the auctioneer for the entire proceeds of the sale ought not in equity to prejudice thb defendant’s rights. Lazarus should have retained n his hand sufficient to have -met dollar’s claim, leaving the latter and Manning to fight their disputes out. Judgment was giventor. plaintiff for LI 6s 4d, with costs of Court.