MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2036, 22 March 1907, Page 1

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

A UVEBTISING CHARGES. A DISPUTED ACCOUNT. Mr. Barton, S.M., presided at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning when the “Gisborne Times” Company sued .Frederick Hall lor tlio balance of an advertising account. Mr. Blair appeared for the plaintiff Company; Mr. Nolan for the defendant.

Mr. Blair said the only itoms in dispute were two entries ol £3 lor advertising for a quarter. The newspaper was acquired irom Messrs. Jones ancl Gaudin about nine months ago. Tlio Company found that several advertisements wore being charged for at lower rates than usual, and it was determined to charge a uniform rate. It was found that Messrs. Jones and Gaudin had boon charging £3 per quarter and that Mr. Hall had paid £2 per quarter. The Company wished to have decided whether this allowance of £1 was a right or an act of grace. The charge of £3 was only about half the scalo charge, and the Company notified Mr. Hall that after the current quarter the scale rate would be charged.'“The Company claimed for £3 per quarter to the end of the year.

AV. J. Gaudin, former part proprietor of the newspaper, said that previous to the sale of the newspaper, Mr. Hall was advertising in it. He had been doing so since about the end of 1905. Met Mr. Hall in the street and got authority to insert an advertisement, but nothing was said as to price of it. At the end of the first quarter told the accountant to render an account for £3. Saw Mr. Hall about a fortnight later and he said the charge was too high. Witness said they would not quarrel about that. The account for the next quarter was sent out at £3. When tlio account was settled on June 23th witness instructed the accountant to make an allowance of £1 per quarter. In the list of advertisements handed to the Company this one was shown at £3. Did not inform the Company that there was a contract at £l2 per year. Did not give any undertaking that only £2 would be charged. Had no arrangement in writing to carry on the advertisement. He had not told anyone that there was a contract with Mr. Hall or an arrangement to pay £3 per quarter. The price stated in his books was £B.

By Mr. Nolan :When Mr. ITall said the price was too high ho was sure no arrangement was made to charge only £2. James Gibson, accountant to tlio “Gisborne Times” Company, said ho had had charge of Messrs. Jones and Gaudin’s books. Mr. Gaudin asked him to make an allowance of £1 per quarter, but said nothing about altering tlio charge. By Mr. Nolan iThought the reduction appeared as an allowance but was not quite sure.

J. A. Connell, manager of the. newspaper company, said the charge had been made because it was the same as made by Messrs. Jones and Gaudin. Saw Gaudin more than once on the matter. Gaudin said there was a contract with Mr. Hall at £l2 per annum, and he repeated the statement to Mr. Blair in the presence of witness. Difl Hot hear before the summons was served that the charge was less than £3. Gaudin said it was all nonsense Hall disputing the accouut as ho had arranged to pay £3.

By Mr. Nolan: Had not seen tlio books in reference to the matter sinco Jones and Gaudin’s account was paid because they were in the possession of Messrs. Jones and Gaudin. The amount charged had been transferred to the company’s books from Jones and Gaudin. Mr. Blair went into the witness box and gave evidence as to a conversation he had with Gaudin regarding the account. He got a statement from Gaudin about the account which he had reduced to writing as follows: —“I aranger] with My. Hu'i! tp advertise for a year for £ifi —£3 a quarter. The account was rendered several times charging £3. When it was settled Mr. Hall was also paying for a largo timber advertisement, etc. He said he would not pay £3 for his business advertisement. 1 told Mr. Gibson he could lot Mr. Hall pay what he liked and £1 per quarter was knocked off. Hall was my landlord and wc were doing other work for him and could afford discount. 1 gave the account to tlio company as a £3 a quarter account. Probably I might have given a similar reduction later, but the charge was £3.”

Mr. Nolan moved for a non-suit but his worship declined to grant it. 'Frederick Hall, tlio defendant, said he met Gaudin in the street and had a conversation regarding an advertisement. Previously to that had had an advertisement in liis paper, being charged £1 10s per quarter. Told Gaudin ho might put in an ad-vi-itis' ineiit simifar fo ' (lie previous ciic. When lie received an account for £3 he saw Gaudin and objected that the charge was too high. Gaudin asked him what would be a fair price ami lm said this or £2, and Gaudin replied that the charge in future would be £2. No mention was made of a contract for £l2 per annum. Was never notified that the charge was to be £3. When he received an account for £3 ho immediately disputed it.

By Mr. Blair: The account received in June was for £3. Wlion disputing the charge with the Company did not mention tlio arrangement at £2 with Gaudin. The S.M. gave judgment for defendant with £1 Is costs. A iICHISK .DEAL. ■ At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, Mr. Njsbett (Mr. T. Alston Coleman) proceeded against John Nisbctt- (Mr. Bright) for £lO, the price of a colt. Wm. Nisbctt, the plaintiff, said he met defendant about flic end of October, 1905, and mentioned that he had a colt by Blue Peter out of Dolly. Defendant said he would take the colt. At defendant’s request the colt was delivered to Mr, McLean. Had no further conversation with defendant about the horse until after it was dead.

By Mr. Bright: The colt was in splendid condition when sold. Defendant had not seen the animal before he bought it. Did not tell defendant that it was a weakling and would die if not 'put in a sheltered paddock. Defendant never said the colt had become troublesome. Had never been on bad terms with the defendant. In conversation with defendant in Common, Shelton and Co.’s dumping shed witness asked who had paid for the castration of the colt. Defendant denied the ownership of the horse. Witness asked defendant if the horse did not belong to him who authorised him to have it castrated. He made no reply. Witness said somebody would have to pay for the horse. The horse died about November, 1906. Had made no claim for payment because he thought he could get the money when ho wanted it. A man named Whitfield was present on two occasions when conversations between

witness and defendant took place in Common, Shelton and Co.’s dumping shed and might have hoard their conversation.

Mr McLean said the colt ran on his property for about 15 months, being placed tliero at request of defendant. Roeoivcd payment for castration of iho horse from defendant. By Mr. Bright: The eolt was in most miserable condition when put ill the paddock. Chas. Louis said the colt was in very fair condition when taken to McLean’s.' Should not say it looked like dying.

John Bright, the defendant, said the plaintiff came to him and asked him to find a sheltered paddock for a colt. Got such a paddock. Fifteen months later the horse was castrated. It then took bad and lie reported flu's to flic plaintiff. It was absolutely untrue that witness bought the colt for £lO.

By Mr. Coleman: At the time of its death the colt was worth £2O hut was not worth £4 at the time of-the alleged purchase. "Witness paid for the castration.

Chas. Whitfield gave corroborative evidence regarding the conversations in Common,"Shelton’s. Judgment, was given for defendant with £1 10s costs.

CLAIM AGAINST A WORKMAN. S. D. McPherson, tailor, Gladstone Road, for whom Mr. T. Alston Coleman appeared, proceeded at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning against George Williams for £5 Gs 9d. Mr. Coleman said the claim was not brought so much to recover tlio amount as to draw attention to what the tailors of the town had to put up with. The plaintiff stated that about October Ist last lie engaged defendant through a waroliou.se firm. He was engaged as a coat hand at £2 15s per week, the engagement being a weekly one. Plaintiff paid defendant’s fare from Auckland. Defendant worked one week and was paid for it. He came in on the Saturday evening after being paid and took some of his belongings away. He sai dhc intended to leave, but after somo conversation agreed to stay if bis wages wore increased to £3 per week. Ho left by that night’s steamer without giving any notice of his intention. In addition to his wages defendant was paid Ss in cash during the week. Defendant’s fare from Auckland was 25s and he had bought goods from plaintiff of a value of 13s 9d. Plaintiff had never authorised defendant to leave without notice. Judgment was given for plaintiff with costs'£2 18s. SALE OF MATERIAL. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning the evidence of one witness was taken in the case in which H. E. Kent (Mr. Burke) sued Geo. Brocklebank (Mr. Stock) for the return of certain moneys.

Samuel Louis Videlph gave evidence that lie had been working for defendant before plaintiff bought ais property. Defendant told witness he had sold the place to plaintiff He remembered a fowl run on the property, round which there would he about 50 yards of wire netting. Defendant told witness to pull the run down. That was after the sale of the property. Knew defendant got £1 for the netting. Knew of the netting round the orchard. There was about 200yds of it. It was removed after the sale of the property. Defendant told the buyer of the netting (Moore) not to come for it on a certain date, because plaintiff would be there. Some drainage pipes on the land were sold to Mr. Carrington, who removed them. Defendant told Carrington to cover in the ground after lie dug the pipes, si that plaintiff could not see that they had been taken. A horse-feed rack on the property was also sold and removed. To Mr. Stock: Did not know the value of the horse-feed rack. About a dozen of the drain pipes were taken out of the ground before the sale of tlio place.. Did not know defendant had sold the whole of the pipes before the sale of the place, but knew lie was negotiating f >:' their sale. Thought the netting in the orchard was in good order. Did not know it was full of hides, The further hearing of the case was adjourned till April 11th.