RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4352, 2 March 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, March 1. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., K.M.) CIVIL CASE. H.; ANDERSON,' WELLINGTON, V. G. JONES, AUCKLAND. : Claim for £27 2s. 10d:, tor services rendered by plaintiff as special correspondent and telegraphic agent to the Auckland Echo. ' ' • i Mr. Buckley appeared for the -plaintiff, and Mr. : Travers watched the case for defen- . dant. i MrJ Buckley having opened the case, Henry Anderson -deposed that he had been a journalist for thirteen years. He had been correspondent for many papers. When the Auckland Echo was started, he was offered the editorship of the paper, but he declined ■ the post, I He,’ however, agreed to act as special correspondent, and to furnish occasional

leaders at £1 per column. Subsequently he was requested to furnish telegrams of matter which was not likely to be supplied by the Press Agency, and he did so. The full teler grams anticipating in a great measure the letters “forwarded by mail, he pointed out to defendant that it would perhaps be better to discontinue ' the letters and simply furnish more extended telegrams, which suggestion the defendant coincided with. The telegrams accordingly were increased, and became the great feature of the paper. Defendant neglected to forward to plaintiff any remuneration for the telegrams, which cost him great and arduous labor. Ultimately witness demanded an immediate and positive arrangement, at the same time drawing on defendent for £lO, but the draft was dishonored, being returned endorsed “This amount has already been drawn for and paid.” The witness characterised the endorsement as an impudent falsehood. After the draft had been dishonored witness ceased to furnish any more items, and summoned the defendant for the amount he claimed, £7 for seven correspondent’s letters, and £2O for ten weeks’ correspondence by telegraph, also 2s. lOd. for the price of a telegram paid by the plaintiff. Defendant had always expressed satisfaction with plaintiff’s work, and other journals had quoted his news.

Messrs. E. T. Gillon, McCarthy, and Marten gave evidence as to the reasonableness of the remuneration demanded by plaintiff. - The evidence of the defendant and C. 0. Montrose—at present sub-editor of the Echo-~ taken before the Resident Magistrate at Auckland, was submitted.

His Worship, in giving judgment, said that after hearing the evidence of the three gentlemen called by plaintiff he had no alternative but to give judgment for plaintiff, for the full amount claimed and costs.