DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2579, 13 July 1882, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Thursday, July 13. [Before His Honor Judge Ward.] HABT V SIIHK, This was an action arising out cf alleged breach of contract in building a house. Damages, £149 153 6d. Mr Fisher appeared for the plaintiff. The defendant did not appear. A. H. Hatt deposed that, on February 15tb, he zntered into a contraot with defendant to ereot a house. Certain extras were agreed upon. Ho had corresponded with defendant, who resides in Auckland—(letter produoed)—by which he referred the plaintiff to Mr Weston, agreeing to make an assignment of the property to the latter provided the house was completed, such assignee to make payment of the balance, but that any interest should be paid by defendant. Judgment was given for amount olaimed and costs. OOGAN V JOUBEBT AND TWOPBNV. This was an action by Edmund E. Oogan against Jonberfc and Twopeny to recover the sum of £2CO damages, alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff by reason of tho nature of the oalalogue osr'.pileu for the International Exhibiticu.

Mr Stringer for plaintifl, Mr Garriek tor defendant. S. V. Cogan deposed that he undertook to oanvasi for the catalogue at the inetanco o:E Mr Twopeoy, for printing which several looal tenders were oalled, but none were satisfacfaotory. He oalled on various printers. The samplo catalogue was given him as a sample, his instructions being that 10,000 would be printed of the first edition. A notice was advertised respecting the catalogue by the promoters [produced] notifying that the catalogue was the only guide or paper of any kind that would be allowed to circulate in the buildiDg. He subsequently received a letter [read], in whioh he was offered a profit of 4d eich for the sale of 9900 copies of the catalogue, which he accepted. He afterwards received delivery of 5000 catalogues in all. He reoaived five panels containing 1000 on April Bth; on April 10th, a second 1000 ; on April 12th, 1000 ; on April 14th, 2000 ; whioh was all he reoeived. He knew Mr Walpole. On the 19h May he reoeived a letter from him, stating that a second edition was ready for delivery to plaintiff. After the Exhibition opened on April 10th he found that the catalogue war useless for the purposes of the Exhibition, and several complaints to that efleot were made to him. In consequence ha waited upon M. Joubert, taking one of the catalogues to him, and he »aid "It w".s all wrong to b ." In reply as to who hail made It wrong, M, • Joubo.-t laid he did not kiow. He had had i nothing at *li to do with it. V/itness then j said his partner, Mr Twnpeny, had, about j whom he made some complimentary remark. | Witney thet demanded 9900 right cataSome fortfesr coaveiaition ensued,

and M. Joubert indulged in some strong larguage.. Witness threw the eatalssge on the table and left. On the 14th April Mr Walpole wrote him, stating that in consequence of the misbehaviour of the boys selling the catalogues, only boys] would be allowed about the building. Other guides beside the catalogue circulated in the building—notably an advertising sheet called the " Exhibition Recorder." Witness believed that other papers were circulated in the building. He eold 2000 copies of the catalogues sent him, whioh he had reckoned in making up his claim.

Cross-examined by Mr Garriok—He furnished Joubert and Twopeny with a statement of his claims. He had made no payment on account, acting under advice. He had given his whole reasons for ceasing the sale of the catalogue. He inferred from the large attendance he would have sold at least 10,000 copies. He [did tell Mr Twop»ny that it would be an inducement to advertisers if 10,000 copies were printed. Mr Twopeny suggested 5000 oopies, but did not assign as a reason that so few copies were sold in Adelaide, where 276,000 people attended. I£ it had been said, he Bhould have remembered it. Mr Twopeny suggested that he should purchase the catalogue in Mr Walpole's office. Mr Walpole told him it was a chance that would only occur once in his lifetime. He did not remember the term " a sporting offer" being used. His memory was not mixed or foggy. He could rsmember the effect of everything that was said. Mr Twopeny did not say that if he sold 4000 oopies it would pay him. He employed a man named Cutler and eight boys to sell the catalogues in the Exhibition building. Cutler was to have the whole sale, and pay witness 7d per copy, or £2BB 18s for the whole number. He did take Cutler off selling, but did not take off the boys. The allegation that the catalogue was not a correct guide applied to the whole of the Exhibition, and not to the Art Gallery. He could name twenty persons, or more, who said the catalogue was not a guide to the Exhibition. M. Joubert never said the worthlesßness of the catalogue ooourred through its being so mixed up with advertisements. As regarded the position of the advertisements, that was settled by Mr Twopeny. His commission for getting the advertisements was 25 per cent. When it was said that Mr Fletcher would issue a catalogue for the exhibits in the Art Gallery, he remarked he should like to catoh him doing so, as his contract preoluded any other guide of any description circulating in the building. He never assigned any reason why he did not pay the £B2 10s for the first 5000 copies. When Mr Walpole called about the advertisements he did not say why he did not pay; but he said he would allow the 2000 sold, but no more. Mr Walpole asked, " What do you intend to do about the revised catalogue." Witness replied the Exhibition was virtually over, but ho would allow for 2000. By remarks made by M. Joubert and others, that the catalogue was not worth twopence, his sale was killed. His nales lasted four weeks, ceasing on May 6th. All delay in the catalogue arose through the aotion of Joubert and Twopeny. As for the iiake of saving a few pounds they sent the printing of it to Dunedin. The advertisement of W. J. Fisher may have delayed the advertisements a day or two, but did not affect the Exhibition part. He had no return of daily sales of catalogue. Its-examined by Mr Stringer—The catalogue being printed in Dunedin, necessitated the oopy for advertisements being got sooner than if it had been printed in Ohristcburoh, as by going to Dunedin a delay of two days was caused. He had nothing to do with catalogue matter. Ceoil Gurney deposed that he was a clerk in the employ of Mr Cogan. He had compared the omissions and inaccuracies of the first catalogue, and had prepared a synopsis of the total errors be had found. Over 350 omissions had been detected by him. Cross-examined —He had oompared the first and second editions, and the errors had been rectified in the second edition. Further, he had verified the exhibits in the building. John Booth, of the firm of George Booth and Son, deposed that early iu March he sent notioe to Mr W. K. Mitchell that his firm would exhibit. They are not correotly catalogued, one item being omitted entirely, and one being put down that was not exhibited. One entry that appeared constantly in the first edition was omitted in the second edition. He tried to use the catalogue in the Art Gallery, but it was useless. In reply to his Honor —Mr Garrick said his contention was that the first edition was correot so far as it went.

Gr. W. Wamsley deposed, that he was the represeatative of various exhibitors in the British Court. He was present on the opening day. Some of his exhibits were there. He obtained a catalogue, and on comparison with his exhibits found it was inaccurate, aiid typographical errors, one being what he considered a wilful mutilation. The exhibits were not oorreotly described. C/oss-examined by Mr Garrick —He swore that he had not received the allowanoe of eighteen words, as promised to exhibitors. The matter that was excluded was not in all cases in exooss of the eighteen words of description allowed. He did not alter his prices preparatory to a seoond trial. He had no grievance against Joubert and Twopeny. Mr Q-arrick said he would show that the practice and result at tbese Exhibitions was to issue a second and revised catalogue. Cross-examination coa'iauei —Two cata logues were issued at Melbourne, and a second edition was also produced at Adelaide, and he thought it was almost a necessity to issue a revised catalogue. Alfred Cutler deposod that he was engaged in the sale of catalogues at the Exhibition, and had several boys thus employed. Messrs Joubert and Twopeny stopped six boys from selling within a fortnight after the opening of the Exhibition. Many people threw thorn down on the seoond day, characterising them as rubbish. M. Joubert used abusive language about the catalogues—said they were not worth 2d per bushel. Mr Oogan told him to keep his temper, and not swear at him, that he would gat a correot catalogue. Cross-examined by Mr Garrick—-He would swear ho mentioned the conversation at the Besident Magistrate's Court. M. Joubert complained that the boys thrust the catalogues in people's faces. Latterly the sales fell off from thirty to about six per day. He asked Mr Twopeny to take charge of 3000 copies of the catalogue that were upstairs. Witness wished to throw up the bargain on the seoond day, but Mr Cogan sr.id—" Keep on, there will be a seoond edi.ion direotly." At this stage the Exhibition programme was put in by Mr Stringer. Mrs Telfer deposed that she was engaged in selling catalogues against the main entranoe of the Exhibitio >. M. Joubert complained of the catalogue being no good, and said he would not give twopence a bushel for them.

This was the oase for the plaintiff. For tho defence Mr Garriok oalled Mr B. B. N. Twopeny, who deposed that in the preliminary arrangements with the plaintiff he enowe". him the catalogue of the Adelaide 'inhibition, of which plaintiff approved. Witness wished to issue oniy 5000. bh there waa not likely to be a larger ««lo in Christchurch than in Adelaide. Plaintiff said he oould not get advcrtisemente for a '*»)« :w ,r . and therefore he arranged with his printers at Dunedin for a 5000 or n. 10,000 issue. Ho j distinctly told plaintiff that it waa absolutely necessary to have a second issue, as it was impossible to get the first perfectly accurate. Witness wanted to |start with 2000, to! be afterwards followed by 3000, but plaintiff was quite sure he oould sell 5000 the first wei-k of the Exhibition, and therefore the 5000 oopies were agreed to be published at once. As to the omissions and erois deposed to by a previous witness as in the first catalogue, thoy were ohiefly of goods not received at tho time of the first edition being priated. He might have one or two blunders. As to the arrangements with plaintiff ho told him he would make him a sporting offer of the catalogue at 41 per copy. He remembered Cutler lolling him that he should oease selling the catalogues, and that he told him, as giving them over into his oharge, the catalogue was not a guide, nor oould it be ; it was, what it purported to be, a catalogue only. Cross-examined by Mr Stringer—The inaocuracies in the catalogue were inseparable from it, as the exhibits were constantly coming in, some coming only a fortnight ago. The public were notified that exhibits would not be received after a certain date. It was always done, and always broken. The last day for receiving entries were said to be on the 7th of April, and it would have been imposaible to have got out a oorrect catalogue by ohe 10th,

Jules Jouberfc deposed—That he was OM of the promoters. He belie Ted the fault was that too many advertisements were put into the catalogue. A complaint was made to him by Mr Oogan in the hsSI of the Exhibition, and, flourishing; it before him, said —" Do you sail that a ootalogue ?" He replied—" It was *n advertising medium." Perhaps h' might have answered somewhat warmly. He had attraded thirty -two Exhibitions, and never yet had aeen a thoroughly oorreot catalogue till after the Exhibition closed. It was called, in some peaces, a "record," and that was a more correet designation; As to the Art Gallery, the owner of the pictures had printed certain flips, which wore placed in the corner of each picture. If the catalogue did correctly describe anything, it correotly described the oontente of the art gallery. There was no extra catalogue issued of the paintings there exhibited. He- complained that the boys selling the catalogues we.e unruly, and stated that if they were not orderly they would have to be expelled. Cross-examined by Mr Stringer. He authorised Mr Walpole to write the_ note limiting the boys inside the Exhibition to two. He never used the language attributed to him.

At this stage the Court adjourned till two o'clock.

XJf m resuming, H. W. Savage deposed that he represented several exhibitors, and had experience in exhibitions. He did not regard a catalogue as a guide, but merely as a record, A. T. Edwards deposed that he had also considerable experience in exhibitions, and stated that it was almost impossible to oompile a correct catalogue on the opening day. He regarded a oatalogue as a classification, not as a guide. G. F. Anthony deposed that he had been the round of the various oolcn'al exhibitions. He corroborated the foregoing evidence. The entries of his exhibits were perfeotly oorrect.

John Hogsn also corroborated the othor witnesses for the defenoe as to the construction of the term catalogue.

His Honor oharacteiised the matter as one of small importance. The verdiot would be for the plaintiff, 40s and oosts.