ACTIONS AGAINST NEWSPAPERS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17686, 25 July 1919, Page 2

ACTIONS AGAINST NEWSPAPERS.

REMAKKABLK CLAIMS. PLAINTIFFS NONSUITED. (Pkb United Preß3 Association.) CIIRISTC'HUftGH, July 24. A little ovor a fortnight ago on advertisement appearing in the Ohristchurch newspapers offered a bigger reward than their valuo for certain goods " taken from my car," adding that no questions would bo asked. To-day, in tho Alagistratc's Court, that adrertisement forniod tho basis of a serios of singular claims against the person whoso name appeared below it and against three city daily papers. By section 254 of tho Justices of tho Peaco Act, 1908, tho publication of certain advertisements renders the parties concerned liablo to forfeit £50 to any person suing- for it by action of debt. It was under that section that the lour claims were- brought to-day, but ail ot the claimants were non-suited. Tho advertisement concerned appeared as follows on July 9:—"Taken from my car on Saturday night, 212 Kilmore street, Christchurch, new rug, suit pyjamas, military overcoat, and several collars; any person returning above articles -will secure a bigger reward than their value; no questions asked. —A. J. Tutton, Rangiora." Section 234 of tho Justices of tho Peace- Act has reference to the restitution of property. It states that everyone (a) who pubbcly adverises a reward for tho return of any property whatsoever which has been stolen or lost and in suoh advertisement uses any words purporting that no questions will bo asked; or (b) who makes use of any words in, any public advertisement purporting that a reward will bo given or paid for any property which has been stolen or lost without seizing or making any inquiry after the person producing such property: or (o) who promises or offers in any public advertisement to return to any pawnbroker or other person who may have bought or advanced money by way of loan upon any property stolen or lost the money so paid or advanced, or any other sum of money or roward for tho' return of such property; or (d) who prints or publishes any such advertisement, shall bo liable to forfeit tho sum of £50 for every such offence to any person who sues for the same by action of debt to be recovered with full costs of suit. The first claim called was that of John Shaw v. tho Lyttelton Times Company. Mr C. S. Thomas appoared for the claimant, and Mr George Harper for the defendant company. Thomas Robson (printer and publisher of tho Lyttelton Times) admitted having printed and published the issue of July 9 containing the advertisement challenged. This was the whole of the claimant's case. Mr Harper, in defence, said that this was an action by a common , informer, who did not appear. Ho really sought to put into his own pocket the sum of £50. plus costs. It was unfortunate that in connection with such matters as this the law here had not kept pace with the British legislation. There ,as far back as 1870, an Act bid been passed amending the previous Act in this matter, which had been as ours still was, by providing that the actions-should be brought within a period of six months after the commission of tho offence and then notf until the consent of tlio Attorney-general or Solicitor-general had betm obtained in writing. In the preamble to that Act it was stated that

wiioreas the oid law had given occasion to many vexatious proceedings at the instance of common informers against printers and publishers of newspapers it was 'expedient to discourage such practices. His lirst poinD was that the Act stated that a man must sue for the lino, and no one was appearing in the box to sue that morning. Tins sum was recoverable by action of deofc, in which case the plaintiff had to appear in person to appiy lor judgment. This was what was called a " penal action," quite distinct altogether from on ordinary criminal action. The action was brought presumably by a man of ■ the name of Shaw. 'i'ney did not know who Shaw was. Me might be a man of straw. On that point he submitted that the action must be dismissed Mr Thomas characterised his friend's argument ad weak and flimsy. The Act said that the person' entitled to the £50 was the person who sued, and Shaw had sued, lie had signed the plaint note, and it was not necessary for him to appear in the bux. The act of suing was the act of signing the plaint note, and not the act of go.ng into the box to support the action. Iho only thing wanted after the claim was a simple proof of printing and publishing. Iho Magistrate asked Mr Harper wny he made a distinction between this *< case and any other civil case. v Mr Harper replied that he had made this point because it was his duty to press overy point, since this was a miserable sort of case to bring, and one the like of which never should have been brought. However, there was a further objection. There was no suggestion in the advertisement that the goods had been stolen. It read simply taken from my car. If the advertisement had said that the eoods had been lost or stolen it would have been incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove such theft or loss, but now there was no proof. This was such a singular case that he could find only about two ethers mentioned in the reports. In both of those the penalties had been afterwards remitted, but all the details could not be found. Mr Thomas replied that to suggest that the insertion of the advertisement did not : suggest that the goods had been stolen I from the oar was ridiculous. If they had j been taken with Tutton's consent he would ! not have inserted an advertisement tailing } oil" with " no questions asked," nor would ho have offered a bigger reward than their value. llie Magistrate upheld Mr Harper's contention. Upon consideration it did seem necessary that there should first of all bo proof that the articles had been stolen. A mere advertisement in the paper, even if it did directly state that an article had been stolen or lost, wa3 no proof of theft. There was rothing to prevent one person from writing such an advertisement in another's name, getting some unsuspecting newspaper to accept it, and then turning common informer without any goods having been stole i at all. The first essential was 10 prove that the articles had been stolen or lost. So far as he at present knew judicially Tutton had neither lost his goods nor had them stolen, and therefore the claimant would be nonsuited. Mr Alpers, who appeared for the company in the olaim of David Andrew Gunn v. the Ohristchurch Press Company, submitted that in that case judgment should be entered for the defendant. Mr F. l>. Sargent; as counsel for the claimant, quite disagreed with Mr Harper's contention that these were in any way improper cases. It seemed a scandalous thing that newspapers should The Magistrate: We don't want that discussed just now Mr Sargent: A scandalous thing that an 1 advertisement of this sort, which, says that any person returning the articles will re- ; ceivo a bigger reward than their value, and am instructed tliat Tutton is a J.P. and should have known better The Magistrate: We don't want that dis- ' cussed just now. ] Mr Sargent's application for an adjournment was refused, and the claimant was nonsuited. In the two romainintr claims Gunn v. A. J. Tutton and John O'Neill v. Canterbury Publishing Company (proprietors of tho Sun) nonsuits were also entered. I =