Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

JOUBERT AND TWOPENNY IN COURT.

At the District Court, Christchurch, yesterday, before his Honor Judge Ward, Mr E. F. Cogan, the well-known advertising agent of Christchurch brought an action against Messrs Joubert and Two penny to recover the sum of L2OO dam ages, alleged to have oeen sustained by plaintiff by reason of the nature of the catalogue compiled for the International Exhibition. E. F. Cogan deposed that in consequence of the catalogue being incomplete, and abounding with typographical and other errors, the sale of it was killed ; that the agreement between him and the promoters provided that eight boys should be allowed to sell catalogues inside the building, which number was reduced to two, thereby breaking the agreement; that numbers had complained that it was no guide to the exhibits, and further that other guides, notably the Exhibition programme, wore circulated in the building, thereby further breaking the agreement. Plaintiff called several witnesses to prove the faulty nature of the catalogue.—Mr It. E. N. Twopenny deposed that his original idea was to issue only 5,000 catalogues in two batches of 2,000 and 3,000 respectively, but he yielded to Hogan's representations, who urged that it was ’nessary to get out 10,000 to secure advertisements,' as he was quite sure 5,000 would be sold the first week of the Exhibition. No catalogue could possibly be complete at the opening of an exhibition, as exhibits were constantly coming in.— Jules Joubert deposed thatJie was one of the promoters. He believed the fault was that too many advertisements were put into the catalogue. A complaint was made to him by Mr Cogan in the hall of the Exhibition, and, flourishing it before him, said —“ Do you call that a catalogue?” He replied—“lt was an advertising medium.” Perhaps he might have answered somewhat warmly. He had attended thirty-two Exhibitions, and never yet had seen a thoroughly correct catalogue till after the Exhibition closed. It was called in some places a “ record ” and that was a more correct designation. As to the Art gallery, the owner of the pictures had printed certain slips, which were placed in the corner of each picture If the catalogue did- correctly describe anything, it correctly described the contents of the Art Gallery. There was no extra catalogue issued of the paintings there exhibited. He complained that the boys selling the catalogues were unruly, and stated that if they were not orderly they would have to be expelled. Had authorised the number of the boys inside tho Exhibition to be two. Defendants brought evidence to show that a correct catalogue at the commencement of an Exhibition was a rarity.—Two witnesses did not consider a catalogue was a catalogue

—merely a “ record. ” The plaintiff got a udgment for 40s and coats.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG18820714.2.14

Bibliographic details

JOUBERT AND TWOPENNY IN COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 688, 14 July 1882

Word Count
460

JOUBERT AND TWOPENNY IN COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 688, 14 July 1882

Working