RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Patea Mail, Volume II, Issue 112, 6 May 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

THURSDAY, MAY 1. (Before Major Turner, R.M., and Messrs H. F. Christie and H. S. Peacock, J.P’s.) There were no cases of a serious nature for hearing at this sitting of the Court, and all were settled with little or no evidence, consequent upon the non-ap-pearance of several of the defendants. The following cases were dealt with : EDUCATION BATES. \Y. Cowern v. John McCoy, £1 19s 6d ; same v. T. Fitzsimmons, £1 19s 6d ; same v. E. Bayly, £1 19s 6d. Judgment for plaintiff in each case. The case of W. Cowem v. Jenkins and Stewart, for payment of rates as occupiers of a store at Ketemarae, was adjourned till Monday, owing to the defendants stating that they had each paid a rate for dwelling houses.

DEBT CASES. C. Wallace v. J. Eichards, claim for £4 5s ; judgment for amount, and 30s costs. W. Dale v. Garwood, an action to recover £2 10s. No appearance of defendant ; judgment for amount, and 10s costs. W. Cowern v. Bartlett, claim for 16s Bd, road rates. Judgment for amount claimed and 10s costs. n Ivess v. Gibson.—This was an action to recover the sum of £7 10s for advertising defendant’s business advertisement in the Patea Mail for one quarter. Mr Fitzherbert appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Adams for defendant.

Joseph Ivess (plaintiff) deposed that about the month of April last year, he waited upon the various business people of Patea to ascertain the encouragement likely to be accorded to him to the establishment of the Patea Mail, and amongst others he visited defendant, who requested to be furnished with prices for an advertisement varying in length for a term of one year. He supplied him with the following rate of charges-:—For a whole column, £3O; half column, £2O ; quarter column, £ls, with the privilege to alter his advertisement as he thought proper. Defendant accepted his terms for a full column by handing in an order to his office. At the expiration of the first quarter plaintiff rendered a progress account for the proportion of the year expired, setting forth in the bill the conditions of the contract, for which he received payment. The next two quarters were also paid. Prior to the publication of the last paper in the third quarter defendant sent in an order to alter his advertisement, and the following day, for some reason or other, he sent in a written notice to withdraw his advertisement and to stop his paper. This plaintiff declined to accede to, as the advertisement was accepted for a stated period at a stated price, and sent defendant written notice (produced) to that affect. Defendant exercised his privilege to alter his advertisement very extensively—some ten times. A large number of other advertisers contracted for twelve months, and raised no quibble about payment. Cross-examined by Mr Adams : The agreement was distinctly for twelve months, no prices were furnished for quarterly rates. John Gibson (defendant), deposed that plaintiff waited upon him prior to starting the Patea Mail, and asked him what support he was inclined to extend. He replied that he would give him a standing advertisement, and support the paper in every way he could. He never considered himself bound by the prices furnished by the plaintiff to advertise for twelve months, and was always under the impression that he could terminate the contract , at any moment by giving written notice to discontinue the advertisement. The prices furnished were at per quarter, at the rate of £3O per year. There were no other persons present in the store when the agreement was made. Mr Adams addressed the Bench for the defence, urging that there was no contract made, and that the defendant was at perfect liberty to withdraw his advertisement.

Mr Fitzherbert, in an able address, requested the Bench to consider the probabilities, wbicb, be contended, were entirely in favor of plaintiff, who, naturally enough, went round to the various merchants and business people to find out the support likely to be given to him before connecting himself with such an undertaking as the starting of a newspaper,, and it was not at all likely that he would venture upon the bare support of one quarter. It was evident that he desired at least twelve months certain. The receipts clearly proved that a contract had existed, though nossibly defendant may have laboured under the impression that it was only a quarterly agreement, I’he Bench, after a short consultation, returned a verdict,for plaintiff, widi £2 9s costsIvevs v. Burrett.—To recover the sum of £4 10s, being amount claimed for nine advertising in Patea Mail. Defendant made application to have his evidence, and that of John Frost heard in Wellington. The evidence taken was to the effect that a distinct order was given for the advertisement to be inserted for three months only. Plaintiff deposed that Frost, defendant’s agent, handed in an advertisement to his office to be insei’ted in the Mail. The order was not accompanied by either verbal or written instr notions. (Copy of original order produced.) At the end of the second quarter be "posted defendant (of Wellington) an account for nine months’ advertising, the receipt of which was not acknowledged, nor any objection raised. At the end of the fourth quarter, he posted another account, and in reply received a cheque for 30s in payment of one quarter, defendant stating that Frost had only given instructions for one quarter. Alexander Black deposed that he remembeied Frost handing in an order for the insertion of an advertisement in the Mail in April of last year, but no instructions as to term were given. It is usual for newspaper proprietors to continue advertisements and charge for same unless the number of insertions or term are stipulated at the time of giving the order. The Bench gave judgmentfor defendant, remarking that Burrett and Frost had sworn that the order was given for three months only. Plaintiff said that he had never seen Burrett in his life, nor had he received any communication from him on the subject in dispute until within the last few weeks. He (Burrett) could only have been guided by the hearsay statement of Frost.

FRIDAY, MAY 5. (Before Major Turner, R.M., and H. F. Christie, Esq., J.P.) The following debt cases were heard:— Sheehan v. Taplin, claim for £ls 11s 2d ; judgment for amount claimed, with costs. Taplin v. W. Wilson, claim for_ £8 6s Id ; judgment for £7 10s lid, with 13s costs, to be paid within one month. The Court then adjourned.