MISERABLE MILLS & CO.

NZ Truth, Issue 127, 23 November 1907, Page 4

MISERABLE MILLS & CO.

DISPUTE A PALTRY DEBT.

The Worries of Advertisement

Canvassers.

A Question of Circulation.

F6r studied, low-down meanness, E. W. Mills and Co., the Wellington warehousemen, take the bun for the present year, ami are welcome to it. The Wellington Ferries Company recently issued a publication entitled "The Wellington Harbor Ferries," being a guide to the local pleasure resorts. The compilers were Messrs C. McGuinness and J. F. Longdon, who received a consideration of £25 from the Company, m addition to the privilege of canvassing for advertisements printed m the guide, of which a circulation of 5000 was guaranteed. Mills contracted with the compilers for an advertisement costing £1 7s. Proofs of the ' advertisement were furnished to Mills and Co. prior to publication without arousing objection, and the guide was duly printed, when Mills and Co. expressed dissatisfaction, the ostensible cause of their annoyance being that a terrific crowd of people didn't appear m the illustrations of Day's Bay, which; formed part of the advertisement, and the resort was therefore not shown to be a pleasure ground for the million. Anyhow, the big firm offered the struggling compilers first £5, then £4 4s m satisfaction of all claims and the publishers PULLED THE MISERABLE WAREHOUSEMEN into Court for the recovery of the £7 7s. Mr NeaVe appeared for plaintiffs ami Mr Blair for defendants. The above particulars were outlined by Con. McGuinness, one of the comr pilers, who said m reply to Mr Blair, that the guide was m every way up to tha representations made , about it. Two thousand of the publications had been circulated ; the remaining "3000 had been printed, but had not yet been issued from the office of the "Evening Post." • Mr Blair based the case of the defendants on two grounds. First, that there was a guaranteed circulation of 5000, and 3000 had not yet left the office of the printers. Secondly, any person circulating the guide was liable to arrest, as section 5 of the Printers and Newspapers Act, 1868, had not been complied with. This provided that the imprint of the printer should be placed upon the first and last sheet of every paper, or book, if there was more than one sheet. The ~uirie had an imprint on one page only. It might be contended that the notification that it was published by C. McGuinness and J. F. Langdon (page 25), and issued by the Wellington Ferries Co., con!stituted an imprint, tout the amending Act of 1892 provided that the registered office of the printers should also be published. This had not been done m the present case.

Dr. McArthur, S.M., pointed out that there was a contract to circulate 5000 guides, and 2000 only had been distributed.

Mr Ncave contended that it was merely necessary to prove the printing o' th« guide and the production of the advertisement.

His Worship did not attach any importance to the point raised by Mr Blair regarding the imprint, as he believed it could appear m any part of the publication., and if 5000 of the guides had been circulated he WOULD ORDER MILLS AND CO. TO PAY the £7 7s forthwith.

Mr Neave said Mr McGuinness was leaving for Sydney on the morrow, and his evidence would not be available when the case was re-opened.

Mr Blair said that m the event of the case being re-opened, he was prepared to accept the evidence already given by Mr McGuinness. He added that Mills and Co. were willing- to pay a reasonable sum m satisfaction of the' claim.

His Worshin said ifc was unfortunite for Mi: McGuinness, .but he had no option but to enter up a non-suit, one guinea costs being allowed.

If anything more mean and miserable on the, part of the head of a big wealthy firm such as Mills and Co. can be imagined, the association must, be with some Jew usurer of the Shylock type. This wealthy firm have the audacity to endeavor to escape the justf of a debt upon such a technical point as the printing of an imprint. If Mills and Co. were satisfied to pay for the advertisement of what interest wa,s it to them whether the imprint appeared upon the front or the back page ? The imprint did not alter the value of their advertisement one iota. But yet they raised this point to escape payment— a point which Dr. McArthur very rightly threw out on short notice. It was nothing but

A DIRTY LOW-DOWN POINT, and "should serve to show the public what sort of a. Christian this miserable man Mills is. This is not the first time he has played the same game. He beat the publisher of a book only a short time ago m the same way. He contracted for a given price, and raised some technical point, and the publisher, rather than go to court, accepted his offer m payment. His offer didn't come off m this instance, however, and he will assuredly have to pay so soon as the balance of the books have been distributed. "Truth" has seen a copy of the book m question and considers it a very creditable production, both on the part of the Perry Company and the compilers. Mr Mills, m raising an objection to paying for his advertisement, is only endeavoring on a legal technicality to evade the payment of his just debt. Possibly, Mr Mills thinks that these books are produced for nothing and that the men who produce them live on air. If such is. his opinion, he is greatly mistaken, and the sooner he realises the fact the better for himself, and when next he signs a contract let him pay up like an honest business man and not endeavor to sneak a couple of cfuid from people he thinks haven't the means of fighting him by dirty, low-down tricks, such as raising the point of "imprint," as he did against Messrs McGuinness and Langdon. Can J. J. North and Co. produce anything m the wav of sharp practice against thn bookmakers or the "two-up school" keepers to equal this for paltry meanness and downright dirt ?