R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 3, Issue 967, 6 January 1882, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON.—THURSDAY.

[Before H. 8. Wmm, Esq,, B.M.]

Smith & Hogg v E, B. Bell -Claim £1 103 for advertising. Mr Bunny for plaintiffs.

J ; . J. Smith deposed he was one of the plaintiffs and had been promised an advertisement by Mr 801 l at 30s for three ■ months. The defendant signed an order to . this effect, and plaintiffs copied an advertisement appearing in the' Dailv. Defendant had not authorised this to be done, but a copy of, the paper containing the advertisement was forwarded to him.and they had a witness in Greytown who could swear that defendant knew the advertisement was inserted. At the end of the quarter defendant on receipt of the account wrote stating that he had not seen the advertisement, but' offered to give an advertisement as promised if they would insert it for £2. This plaintiffs would not accept, as it was very long and the price would not be half the usual charge, E. B. Bell, defendant, stated that he had given the order as a promise to give an advertisement, but he gave no authority to lnsertjthe one they did, as it was with reference to timber which he had at that time ceased dealing with, and the advortisement in the Daily had expired at the time plaintiffs copied it. He had given them an advertisement according to pro-, mise, but they refused to insert it at a reasonable price, His Worship held that as the order did not specify any particular advertisement, the plaintiffs had no authority for copying the advertisement from the Dauy; He therefore entered a nonsuit with costs 10s and witness' expenses 20s.