Important to Newspapers.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1710, 17 May 1886, Page 4

Important to Newspapers.

In the Hawcra RM. Court a few dava ago was heard the case of the proprietors of the Hawera Star v. K. H. Bartlect, of Auckland. A man named ■Waters had been acting as agent for defendant, the well-known photographer ami artist of Auckland, and had caused advertisements to be inserted announcing that he was m the district, and was prelw.ofl to take painted photographs. Waters got into trouble, and Barlett sent ilnv/n another agent who advertised that "Waters was no longer Bartlett's agent. The account for the advertisements oriloiyvl by Waters was refused payment by R.-rtlett, who alleged that Waters had iiq authority to pledge his credit. Hence 't'-xi-ajption. The main points relied on for the defence appeared to be that the agreement between Bartlett and Waters was that the latter should receive commission upon orders, but should pay all expenses himself; and that advertising was by no means necessary m this case. Such agreement had not, however, been iii.aio known to plaintiffs. In giving ju'i^ment the R.Rf. (Mr Wrav) said that tin; principal difficulty which had presented itself to him had been to decide whether the .credit had been given exclusive! v to Waters or not, owing to the miujner m which the claim had been debited to Waters m the day book and to B.uilett m the ledger. From the evidence of Mr Inn<3s and of Mr Epps it appeared, however, to be- one of those cases m which either principal or agent was liable. Another thing which led to that view was the fact that by the acts of the defendant himself he had taken. fn'i a ;! vantage of the acts of his agent, for after the misfortune of Waters, BartId r took full advantage of Water's acts by moaners of his new agent, who came do-A-u nnd completed on Bartlett's behalf tho orders which people had left with \ Vfis He considered the defendant liable on the facts. As to the law points raisfid, it was clearly within the scone of Waters' powers to pledge Barlett's credit m this way. He was obliged to advertiso, and the plaintiffs were justified m believing that he had authority from liartlolt to do it, although we knew, by evidence taken by commission i» AuckLm !, that ho really had no such authority. Judgment, would be for plaintiffs for tho i*. mount claimed, £11 ss, with costs, &i 18s