UNUSUAL CASES.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 16584, 25 July 1919, Page 5

UNUSUAL CASES.

1 ADVERTISEMENT QUESTIONED. NEWSPAPER PROPRIETARIES SUED. Four unusual cases, in which the three Christchurch newspapers and a private defendant were ooncerned, were heard before Mr T, A. B. Bailey, S.M., at the civil sittings of the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The cases aroso out of an advertisement which appeared on July 9th. — signed by' A. J. Tutton, of Rangiora —in all three local papers, as follows:—"Takea from my car, (Saturday night, 212 Kiimore street, Christchurch, new rug, suit of pyjamas, military ovcrcoat, and several collars. Any person returning the above articles will receive a bigger reward than their value. No questions asked." The plaintiffs in the four actions were John Shaw (Mr C. S. Thomas) v. the Lyttelton Times Co.; John O'Neill (Mr C. S. Thomas) v. The Canteroury Publishing Co.; David Gunn (Mr I' 1 . Sargent) v. the Christchurch Press Co.: and same v. A. J. Tutton. 'iye actions were laid under the following section (231) of tho Justice of the Peace Act: '"Everyone "(a) Who publicly advertises a reward for the return of any property whatsoever which has been stolen or lost, and in such advertisement uses any words purporting that no questions will be asked; or "(b) Who makes use of any words m any public advertisement. purporting that a reward will be given or paid for any property which has been stolen or lost without seizing or making any enquiry after the person producing such" property or ... "(d) Who prints and publishes any such advertisement, is liable to forfeit the sum of £50 for every such offence to any person who sue 3 for the same by action of debt, to be recovered with full costs of suit." The first case called was Shaw v. the Lyttelton Times Co. (Mr G. Harpor). Mr Thomas called John Reid, a de-puty-registrar of the Supreme Court at Christchurch, who produced a certified oopy of the affadavit of registration of the Lyttelton Times Co. Thomas Edward Robson was named _ on the affidavit as printer and publisher of the defendant company. Thomas E. Robson, called, said he was the printer and publisher of tho "Lyttelton Times." He produced the issue of the paper of July 9th, 1919. He stated that he printed and published that-copy of tho paper. Tne company had beon carrying on businoss for a considerable time. — This closed plaintiff's case. Mr Harper, for tho defence, .said that before moving for a non-suit in the case lie would draw attention to ' the section of the Justices of the Peace Act under which the action had been brought. It was an action by a common informer, who sought to put into his pocket the sum of £50 and costs. The "Legislature of the Dominion had not kept pace with the Legis.ature of Great Britain in this matter, for, as long ago as 1870 tho English Act had ■been amended \n the direction of not allowing such actions to be brought unless within the period of six months, and then not unless the assent in writing of the Attorney-General had been obtained. This was because many vexatious cases • had been, brought against printers and publishers of

I newspapers, and it was deemed expedient to discourago the practice. Ihe . common informer in the present ease ' did not appear. In an ordinary case ! tho plaintiff had to appear in person and claim judgment. This was what was called appeal action, and _ wai quite distinct from a criminal lnlormation. According to New Zealand law there was no time-limit w'lthin which such a case must be brought. Tho informer was a man named Shaw, and i tho defondants knew nothing at all about him. As no plaintiff appeared, counsel submitted that be couid not ask for a non-suit, as to do tins the plaintiff must appear. , Mr C. S. Thomas said Mr Harper ? contention was no doubt interesting, • but was, in his opinion, very flimsy His client, the plaintiff, had signed tho plaint note, and therefore he had sued in form as required by tho Act. The act.of suing was the act of signing the plaint note, and not the .act or going into the bos. The only question after this was the simple proor 'of printing and publishing, and this ; had been proved. i Mr Harper said he would not press the point. The nest point he _ wished I to submit was that tho advertisement did not state that the articles had been "stolen" or "lost," but only that they had been "taken" Irom the car. Ho contended that if tho advertisement had said the goods wevo lost or stolen it was still incumbent on the 1 plaintiff to show that they really had 1 been lost or stolen. This was a sinI gular case, and he had only been able to find about two cases which bore on it in the reported, cases.. He cited the Queen v. John King, in No. 1 Cox's Criminal Cases. He submitted that the whole intent of the legisi lation bearing on the matter was to I prevent the compounding of a felony. I Tho mere insertion of an advertise- ■ ment was not an offence, unless the j suer showed that there had been an I attempt to compound a felony, and Ino such proof had been before tho Court. _ Mr Thomas said lie thought Mr HarI por's second point flimsier than the ! first. To contend that the goods had ■ not been stolen from the car was too absurd. _Ho cited a case in wnich, unuer similar circumstances, tho jury had given a verdict for plaintiff. Mr Harper: But the penalty wa3 remitted immediately afterwards. His Worship said he upheld Mr Harper's contention that it was necesi sary first for tho plaintiff to provi , that the things had, in fact, beei stolen. The more insertion in a papc* of an advertisement stating that ar I tides had been taken was insufficient las proof. Tnere was nothing to pro I vent anyone putting in an advertisc- | nicnt in another person's name, anil : getting an , unsuspecting newspapei : lirm to publish the advertisement, and then arranging with another person tc ! lay an information under tlic Act. He held that it was, first of all, nocessaiy 1 for tho plaintiff to provo that ilu I art-idles toad been - citiicr stolen oi I lost; when that wag accomplished tne [ plaintiff could then prove tho cihei parts of his case. At present there i was only proof that something had spi pea rod in the paper which might be correct or incorrect. He would entei i a non-suit against the piaintiff. I Mr 0. T. J. Alpers, who appearec i for the Christchurch Press Co., said h< ; wished his Worsnip could liavo giver ! a judgment for tho defendants. He ' fully agreed with all tlic points made by "Mr Harper, and pointed out tm ' i justice of tho contentions. .Tnerc ' i might easily have been a hoax, oi cohusion in such a~ matter, though he did not suggest this in the preseni Ca jlr Sargent said IID emphatically disagreed with Mr Harper, who suggested that such cases were of a contemptible character. Mr Tutton was a J.P. himself, and ought to ha\t known better than to insert such an advertisement. He asked for an adjournment of the cases in which lie tvoc M^rprnfid Mr Alpers opposed the application Mr Sargent said he would take the case Gunn v. The Press Co.-, and wou.d call Mr Tutton to prove whether the articles had been "lost" or 'stole' 1, Tho witness was caLed, but there was no appearance. • Mr Sargent thereupon said he would accept a non-suit under, the circumstances in 'his cases. It would Oiily mean, however, that they would have to como before the Court on a second occasion. , Mr Thomas entered a formal protest, against a non-suit in his case of O INorll v° the Canterbury Pub.isltin.a Co. (Mr J J DougJill), but the Magistrate adhered to his ruling, basing his decision on a clause in th° Magistrate s Court Act, which entitled him to nonsuit a plaintiff who had not given satisfactory proof entitling him to a judgCounsel for plaintiffs indicated that tho cases would be brought up again.