NEWSPAPER LITIGATION.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXI, Issue 83, 8 April 1911, Page 6

NEWSPAPER LITIGATION.

PEOPRIETOR AND LESSEE AT 1 LAW. i ' litigation between William Henry 4Smith, proprietor of the Manawatu t Times newspaper, and Ernest Denis iHoben, journalist., came before the Supreme Court in Chambers to-day. The questions' 'for the court are :— - 1. Whether, upon the true construction of the deed of bailment,, the plain'rtiff is (as he claims to be) entitled to of the net realised profits of the '^newspaper business, irrespective of tho '-drawings of defendant as "-against anticipated profits, such drawings not beting chargeable to nor deductible from .s^ueh net realised profits ; or whether de'jfendant is entitled to claim- (as he does -qclaim (a) that defendant should be -Allowed, to draw £10 per week in lieu salary for editing and conducting the ■(business, and that the drawings are^ a .ffirst' charge upon all' profits when realised, and, further, that the division of itprofits is to be made equally betweeu ■^Hie parties after the drawings have been fallowed 'for; (b) in the alternative that ijdefendant is entitled to anticipate throughout the period of the bailment eat the rate of £10 per week, this sum ■fbeing charged against his drawing' :<account] in the books on account of all profits- when realised to be payable to plaintiif until be has received §m profits a share eq.ua! to the total - of defendant in anticipation. ,2. Whether plahrHff is ' entitled (as $he claim*.) to receive- at the end of, -any 'Sfialf-year a moiety_ of -the net realised ■ earned during ? f hat = haif -year; or |wh&t'her (as defendarnfc claims) so long j»s there are any undischarged liabilities - ,«Suusianiding at the end vof any half-year, jtfhere .cannot be any net- . realised .profits «vqiiable for division. "•'-3. Whether the expression net readfised profits means the surplus of receipts over expenditure properly charge«sible to- the busine;*- ; or whether the 4|iabilitiefs (if any) properly chargeaiW 'ytp the business in account plain- j jfiff and defendant' outstanding at the £"£nd of the half-year are to be provided j %for onfc of such surplus division ;jo£ the same. < 4. Whether defendant is entitled in •(Eis account with plaintiff- to charge to -iworking expenses : — (a) interest on , puoney borrowed by defendant to assist '3jim in carrying on-. the business; (b) .to defendant's income-tax; . (c) subscription's and donations*; paid in, cash by defendant, nofe being rebates or discount lan advertising. ■ -- . !f Hie Honour thesChief Justice* occupied i^he Bench. . 1 Mr. C. B. Collins -appeared for plain-* ififl and Mr. C. A. Laughnan for defendant. •{ -; A,fter dealing with tho. conditions in 'ihe- statement • of ' the ' case; Mr." Collins -Said there was a difference --of opinion as 'jto'ihe meaaing'gf the" term "nefafeaV 3&ed profits. " Counsel read 1 - a balance■uheet which showed that theiincome for half-year was £2359 but -a question jjfrom his Honour elicited the fact that of this was stall in the* books. • Mr. Collins said- that plaintiff desired -^n -account kept- at a banfc-eo-that there•could be a check upon defendant. Mr. Loughnan submitted t&at tile con- . "struction of the deed justified the con-; that the defendant was entitled Tto assume profits up to £10' a week for *his own living expenses irrespectiv© of -aresulte. The rent was postponed until -Jfche end of six years {the- date of the •^expiry of the agreement) if-there wa6 no r tprofit. Borrowed money was needed to ■carry on the business and he claimed interest on this. His Honour reserved his-decieionu