PRINTING COSTS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXXI, Issue 83, 8 April 1940, Page 8

PRINTING COSTS.

. "TREASURE ISLAND." GOLD ON GREAT BARRIER. ] SUPREME COURT CLAIM. [ A picturesque and highly artistic , booklet, issued as a prospectus for - "Treasure Island Gold Mines. Ltd. (Great ; i Barrier, X.Z.),"' was the subject of a i claim before Mr. Justice Fair in the ; 'Supreme Court to-day, in which Clark • and Matheson, printers (Mr. Murray White), claimed £102 10/ from Anthony Petrie (Mr. Bain bridge). Mr. White said the claim had. been brought in the Magistrate's Court and had been removed by the defendant to the higher court. The claim was for labour and material incidental to the supply of the booklet as a prospectus, > including the preparation of a special cover design. The. defence set up was that defendant was acting -merely as agent for some people, in Sydney, and also that the plaintiff company had done the work on the understanding that they were to be paid only if the company were actually lloated. Plaintiffs' Evidence. The evidence for plaintiffs, said coun- i sel, would be to the effect that the preparation of the booklet, with special cover design and qther illustrations by the firm's commercial artist, was first mentioned by a Mr. McDougall. who said he was aetinir for defendant. It was believed Mr. McDougall had since left the country. This- was in October, 1934. Later members of the plaintiff firm met defendant himself and discussed the prospectus with him, and he approved the cover design and dummy, supplied the text matter, and eventually, in November. 1934, ordered. 30 copies on a special paper. These were printed. It would be stated in evidence, counsel continued, that at no time did defendant represent that he was acting in the matter for people in Sydney, nor did the plaintiff company agree to payment for the work being conditional on the flotation of the company. Nothing more was beard from Mr. Petrie for several months, added counsel, and then when he was interviewed he said flotation was temporarily held up, but gave the plaintiffs to understand that he was personally liable for the work done. After more delay the plaintiff company, in February, 1937, rendered to defendant their bill for .£lO2 10/. Xo protest was received from defendant about the charge, that he was merely an agent, or that payment was contingent on the company's successful flotation. In July, 1937. when the matter was put in a solicitor's hands, the present defence was raised for the first time. Further delay was occasioned by the question of mortgage adjustments in defendant's estate, but in 1939 the present proceedings were issued. Flotation in Sydney. Stanley Owen Clark, managing director of the plaintiff company, gave evidence on the lines of counsel's statement. He said his firm knew from what Mr. Petrie said that it was defendant's intention to float the company in Sydney, but at no time were they given the names of any of the people in Sydney with whom Mr. Petrie was dealing. His Honor: Who supplied the letterpress for the prospectus?— Mr. Petrie. His Honor commented that the purport of the prospectus seemed to be to emphasise the probability of gold being found on the Great Barrier in payable quantities. Witness said he had not seen Mr. McDougall for a considerable time, and believed he was out of New Zealand. Witness Cross-examined. In cross-examination by Mr. Bainbridge, witness said that definitely McDougall did not suggest to him that this work should Ik? done for Petrie and that payment should be contingent on the flotation of the company. f Counsel: Well. is here in Court and will be able to speak for himself. Witness said lie did not think his account appeared among defendant's ; liabilities in the hitter's application for mortgage adjustment. He would flatly deny that defendant personally lodged ' an objection to him against the charge when it was made in 1937. Corroborative evidence was given by * Gilbert Meadows, commercial artist. ' The case is proceeding.