“WHO’S WHO”

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19892, 22 May 1936, Page 8

“WHO’S WHO”

BIOGRAPHY EXCLUDED. COMPANY MANAGER’B CLAIM. JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. (By Telegraph.—Pre»£ Association.) WELLINGTON, Friday. The recovery of £44 paid to the International Press Service Association of Nexv Zealand, publishers of the International Press Who’s Who was sought by George Patrick Costigan company manager, of Lower Hutt, from Clement Stephen Cook, proprietor of the association, in the Magistrate’s Court to-day. Mr Lawry. S.M. presided. Plaintiff claimed that under a contract entered into in April, • 1933, defendant contracted to insert a fullpage portrait of plaintiff together with biographical notes in the International Press Who’s Who ' for £44. Plaintiff claimed that defendant failed to carry out. his part of the contract in the volume then about to be published, and also that defendant failed to supply plaintiff with a copy of his “ Who’s Who in New Zealand ” on or about May, 1933. The defence was that the contract was not for the 1933 issue of the book.

Costigan, in evidence, said that since the summons had been issued he received a copy of the 1936 edition in which his picture and biography appeared but he returned It to the publishers. Cook, in evidence, contended that Costigan’s name had come in too late for publication in the 1933 Issue. His name would during his lifetime and-if he. was going overseas he would, be given about 50 press sheets to give to reporters In various ports. Payment for Inclusion. Cross-examined as to how various people in the book were obtained, he said a certain person paid £44. Counsel: Did the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, pay £44? Witness: No. Counsel: Or Lord Bledisloe—No. Continuing, witness said Sir Michael Myers paid 30s prior to publication for a copy of the work but those who did not pay £44 did not. get the press service. Counsel: Who decided who is going to pay and who is not? Witness: I suppose I decide. I extend an Invitation. The magistrate agreed with eotiasel for plaintiff that one of his difficulties was that the receipt for the £44 was "for furtherance of the work” and that It, was "astute.”

The magistrate entered judgment for defendant but reserved the right to appeal.