FALSE STATEMENTS

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 144, 16 December 1930, Page 18

FALSE STATEMENTS

ADVERTISING SCHEME

CLAIM ALLOWED

(By Telegraph—Press Association.) DUN.EDIN, loth December. A ('ase in which tlio Civic Press and Publishing Co., Ltd., of Wellington, and Thomas C. Co.v, also oi! Wellington, wore proceeded against"by 37 Duucdin retail firms, who are claiming to recover £111 ss, being the total amount of advertisements published for the plaintiffs by the defendant company, was heard in the Magistrate's Court to-day before Mr. .1.. If. Bartholomew, S.M. Mr. AY. I>. Taylor represented ' the plaintiffs, Mr. J. S. (Sinclair the defendant Cox, and Mr. liuf'Ccll the defendant firm. I The statement of claim set out that the defendant company recently published at; AVellington a book or pamphlet entitled "The New Zealand. Post it ml Telegraph Employees' Handbook." The defendant Thomas C. Cox in the months of March and April, 1930, was employed by the defendant firm to procure from retailers and tradesmen in Duucdin and elsewhere advertisements to be inserted in the said handbook. j During the months mentioned, the j statement proceeded, the defendant Cos interviewed at Dunedin a representative of each of the plaintiffs and induced each plaintiff to advertise in the handbook by falsely and fraudulently representing to each plaintiff's representative that he had authority to appoint retailers to the Post and Telegraph Cash Purchase Association or Civil Servants' Cash Purchase Association, and that they would be so ur>pointed if they took an advertisement in the handbook. JVelying on the truth of this statement, each plaintiff was induced to enter into a contract to advertise in the handbook. "WITH KNOWLEDGE OF FALSITY." It -was held that the representation was made by the defendant Cox with a knowledge of its falsity, or recklessly without belief in. its truth, aud with the intention that it should be acted upon by each of the plaintiffs. It was further contended that neither of the defendants had any authority to appoint retailers to the association, and, in fact,- had no connection whatever thorewith. None of the plaintiffs had been appointed official retailers to the association, and the advertisement was worthless unless coupled with such official appointment as retailers to the association. Each plaintiff had paid the amount required to be paid under the advertising contracts, and each of the plaintiffs claimed to recover from tho defendants jointly and severally amounts totalling £111 ss. Evidence on the lines of the claim ■was given by representatives of nine of the plaintiff firms, all of whom swore that had tho defendant Cox not held out the inducement of their appointment as retailers to the Post and Telegraph Casli Purchase Association, they would not have been parties to the advertising contracts. In the course of lengthy evidence the defendant Cox denied that he had approached the plain tiffs with a promise that they would become members of the Cash Purchase Association if they advertised in the handbook. He had merely used a copy of the Wellington Post and Telegraph Handbook to demonstrate to retailers the nature of the advertisements published therein. Under cross-examination, the defendant admitted that he had shown the Cash Purchase Association booklet to one prospective advertiser. NO SUGGESTION OF COLLUSION. After reviewing the evidence given for each side, tho Magistrate stated that accumulatively the effect of the evidence pointed to the conclusion that the plaintiffs could not all be mistaken. All the witnesses were independent of one another, and each told the same story, but there could be no suggestion" of collusion, as details of some of the evidence scouted that idea. It had been conclusively demonstrated by witnesses that the representations made to them were false and were known to be false by Cox, constituting fraudulent misrepresentation on his part. Tho efforts of the defendant company itself did not show evidence of a high standard of business dealing, as an inspection of the AVellington handbook disclosed advertisements which did ,not comply with the requirements of business integrity. So far as damages were concerned, all the witnesses stated that the advertisements were valueless and would not have been inserted apart from their appointment to the association. That being the case, the plaintiffs lost the sums paid for advertisements on account of fraudulent misrepresentation, and were therefore entitled to recover the amount of the claim, with Court costs (£3 ss), solicitor's fee (£6 ss), and witnesses' expenses (£7 13s).