THE RIVAL PROGRAMMES.

Auckland Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 148, 25 June 1887, Page 7

THE RIVAL PROGRAMMES.

■piGMEST was given in the Kesident B^istrate's Court yesterday against a Wei" ■fegtpn advertising agent named Hourigan Bi a claim of a novel, character. The graintiff was a youth named J. R, Oldfield, ■Biie claimed LI 6s. for sendees rendered. ppee'service's -were 'to snatch from the Kiorsto the Opera House the programme ■prous the";'' Evening Curtain," and to ■bglytthein with the opposition " krect Hal" styled the "Bulletin." The" duties Hse admitted/ but . the defendant ■Kjjested, although he did hoc . put H, a ; set off for. admission tickets fit Mac shillings per night. Mr Tylden apfflared for the plaintiff, while Mr Hourigan ■Wticted his' own case, but in such a |§pner as to call down upon him several Rnmands from His Worship, exception ■Kg taken to the style of cross-examination Htoloyed. The, plaintiff gave evidence to Reflect that the defendant engaged him ■■the season, "but the amount of reHpration was not stated. Mr Hourigan Hi Mm that he was to snatch the "Our■n" from people entering the- Opera pipe, and to give them the- "Bulletin" Mtaid. In reply to the defendant, ■B'WBfessed'i.that he would not have 9HW himself into the river if ,he ''Hk'told him to do,so. He did not say gfflk being engaged that he did not want, jttpayinent for his services, and that he ■fed-be satisfied so lone as he had an of seeing the performance. The fflpr of tho plaintiff . was called |Bl deposed that when defendant Hpr»i here he represented himraPto be- a kind of-advance agent to the ■pa company. He told witness that if he HI not get' employment >at the door as ■Pet taker he would engage him to dis: I|pnte programmes. The charge made was gftljtwo shillings per night, and to this ■■ant.; ■ defendant demurred,- • saying ■X lie was only given one shilling | iffi sixpence per nigbb. Witness usually gTOefl^>vo shillings and sixpence a night. gßwonldi swear that his son was engaged H|piiiSg;" programmes at the Opera thirteen nights, but he was. not fflWe that the defendant had against him a jfl^-of three shillings per night for ad- ; K^°^|;o tQe performances of the company. IjHpwitHeaps was also called to depose to Hfeit4 between the plaintiiF and defenaccount presented was for two Hj|§S a night, and Hourigan was offer-I'HBlfo-pay one shilling and six pence. JffiWprship asked the plaintiff if he would JJwtthe Is 6d per night whicli Hourigan | Hfproved to have offered, and a reply was iMFita the affirmative. Defendant had no [ Swi.e3s to call, and judgment was given for 1 WPlaintifF, for 19s 6d, with coats £1 17s