LITERARY SERVICES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCIV, Issue 10707, 17 July 1895, Page 3

LITERARY SERVICES.

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., the case of J. T. M. Hornsby v. The Lyttelton. Times Company, Limited, claim £23 9s was heard. Mr Cassidy appeared for. the plaintiff and Mr Wilding for the'defendants. The claim was for articles alleged to have been written for the Lyttelton Times during the time the plaintiff was editor of the Star. The plaintiff stated that some time ago he applied for the position of editor of the Star. Plaintiff was then receiving a salary of .£3OO a year in Napier. He was appointed to the position of editor of the Star at a salary of £225 a year. The notice of his appointment was sent to him by letter dated March 30, 1894, from Mr Wilkin, manager of the company. Plaintiff wrote a letter to Mr Wilkin accepting the position, and received a reply asking him to take up his duties on June 1. He received a further letter from Mr Wilkin stating that all the editorial work in : the office was under the supervision of Mr Saunders, and that either party was to have three months’ notice of the termination of the agreement. Plaintiff understood from this letter that Mr Saunders was head of the literary department, and knew that Mr Saunders directed the literary work of the three papers— Lyttelton Times, Canterbury Times and Star. A letter dated April 9, from Mr Saunders to plaintiff, stating that the latter’s appointment would date from June 1 was put in. Plaintiff’s sole object in accepting this engagement was to carry on a warfare with Truth . All the letters he had put in as evidence of his engagement were official. He wished to disclaim any intention of putting in private letters. After receiving notice of his appointment he came to Christchurch from Napier, and commenced his duties at the beginning of June. Both Mr Saunders and Mr Wilkin told him that on account of Mr Evisbn’s departure from Truth he would have less scope than it was otherwise intended they should Lave given him. They both assured him that opportunities would bo presented to him for work on the Lyttelton Times sax A Canterbury Times, and Mr Saunders repeated the promise he made in a latter that there were numbers of opportunities for a man like plaintiff in the establishment. Mr Wilkin also held this inducement out to 'plaintiff. Shortly after he took up .his duties on the Star he commenced writing articles for the Lyttelton Times. Mr Bishop (to Mr Wilding) : Is it admitted that. the plaintiff wrote the articles ? Mr Wilding: Some of the articles are admitted. Plaintiff continued: As far as his memory served him*, the article on “Our Population” was the first he wrote for the Lyttelton Times. This article was published as a sub-loader on June >26, 1894. The article was compiled from a Blue Book which was left oh plaintiff’s table by Mr Saunders and was; approved by Mr Saunders. Plaintiff wrote other articles for the Lyttelton Times,: some vofthem; at: the request of Mr Saunders. Mr Saunders asked plaintiff, to assist"him"in- -writing articles during the absence of the associate editor in Wellington,, This, was . during the session of Parliament.' ‘After plaintiff had finished his daily work on the Star he frequently stopped; at the, office for the purpose of writing articles for the Lyttelton Times. Sometimes he stopped as late as 7 p.m., and on other, occasions, her wrote articles at his home and took them to the office at night. These articles ; for the Lyttelton Times were all written during the time he was editor of the Star. The article on the industrial exhibition was written at the request of Mr Saunders, who spscially thanked plaintiff for it. The charges for the other articles in the: statement of claim were a little less than the charges that were allowed to other writers for the same class of work. He had received larger sums for similar work. On Feb. 24 plaintiff published some bogus cablegrams in the Star and next day he was dismissed. Mr Saunders knew beforehand that plaintiff was going to publish these cablegrams and offered no objection to their publication. To Mr Wilding: When plaintiff took up his duties as editor of the Star he was not told to submit all his writings to Mr Saunders. Grave faults were not found with his original writing. Some time after being in the employ of the company, he was told to submit bis writings to Mr Saunders. Up to the time he was dismissed he made no claim to the company for the articles he had supplied to the Lyttelton Times. He always understood that he would be paid for them, and did not think it was necessary to send in a claim. Very shortly after he was dismissed he sent in a claim through his solicitor. The date was March 6, 1895. Plaintiff was in Napier when the claim was sent in. The first and only claim was made through Mr Cassidy. Plaintiff was promised remuneration for these articles both by Mr Saunders and Mr Wilkin. They made this promise over and over again. Three of the articles he claimed remuneration for were compiled from the London letter. These were entitled “Women Shop Assistants in Scotland,” “New Zealand .Timber,” and M.The Gothenburg System,” The article “ If Christ Came to Chicago ” was written by plaintiff. The London letter came addressed to the editor of the Star, and was written by a gentleman in London, who was paid by a syndicate of papers. He had charged the lowest scale for these articles. He did not write for any other paper while ho was editor of the Star. To Mr Cassidy ; When plaintiff was dismissed the company' gave him three months’ salary and a very nice testimonial. John James Collins, an architect, deposed thathe remembered going with Mr Hornsby to inspect the river Avon. He read the article on “ The Avon ” which appeared in the Lyttelton Times on the following day. This was the plaintiff’s case. Mr Wilding, in opening the case for the defence, said it had never been the practice in the office of the company to pay members of the literary staff for contributions outside their ordinary duties. Mr Hornsby had begged to be allowed to contribute to the morning paper as well as the Star, But no agreement was made as to his receiving any extra remuneration. The work done by Mr Hornsby for the Lyttelton Time? bad been done gratuitously, and he (Mr Wilding) would submit that as no re-

numeration was, agreed upon the plaintiff was not entitled to recover any portion of the amount sued for. He called

J. S. Guthrie, formerly editor, ano . now editor and manager of the Press I who stated that he was a directoi | of the United Press Association, ana was cognisant of newspaper practice. Hie company, like the Lyttelton Times Company, published three newspapers. It an editor of one of the papers voluntarily contributed to one of the other papers he (witness) would, not consider he would have to pay him unless some arrangement had previously been made. He had known men in his company receive payment for contributions to other than the journal they were engaged on, but some express agreement had previously been made as to payment. To Mr Cassidy : He did not know what custom prevailed in Napier or other parts. In witness’s opinion the question of payment would depend on the agreement. If he asked a writer who was on another paper to write an article for the Press, he would ascertain what payment was expected. The editor of Truth had contributed matter to the Press, and had not been specially paid. If the editor of _ Truth wrote an article for the Press, witness would not pay him unless some agreement had been made as to payment. W. H. Triggs, associate editor of the Press, stated that, in the absence of an express contract, it was the custom among journalists employed on papers controlled by the same company that such articles as those mentioned in the claim should not be paid for. S. Saunders, editor of the Lyttelton Times, stated that shortly after Mr Hornsby’s appointment to the position of editor of the Star Mr Hornsby wrote a sub-leader ou “The River Avon.’’ The article was volunteered by Mr Hornsby. Witness had no authority to pledge the credit of the company to members of the literary staff who might send in contributions. Witness did not think it possible that he had said anything to Mr Hornsby about receiving remuneration for articles suppliedto the Lyttelton Times. Witness had, before ho' received the ap-; pointment of editor of the Lyttelton Times,' sent in contributions to that journal. He had never sent in any claim for remuneration. He had been in the service of the company for nine years. The members of the literary staff were in receipt of salaries which wertfjjaid weekly. They never received payment for contributions to any particular paper. The subleader, entitled “Our Population,” in the Lyttelton Times of June 2G was written by witness and not by Mr Hornsby. Witness was quite sure he wrote this article. The manuscript was not now in existence. The article on “ The Salted Mine ” was compiled from printed matter, apd probably introduced by a few lines. The article on “ Barnardo’s Homes ” mentioned in the statement of claim was not original. Some of the articles mentioned m the claim were compiled from the London letter. - There wore only six original articles in the claim. Witness wrote the article on “ The Canal,” and also that on “The Gothenburg System.” The style of Mr Hornsby’s writing was not, in witness’s judgment, adapted to his (witness’s) columns. This was merely a matter of opinion, and the extensive alterations made in the manuscript produced did not necessarily reflect on Mr Hornsby’s ability as a journalist. Witness had refused many of Mr Hornsby’s contributions; be had never solicited leading articles from Mr Hornsby. Witness did not know that Mr Hornsby was going to publish the bogus cablegrams. Had he known they were going into the Star he would certainly have objected at once. Witness had never received any claim from Mr Hornsby tor his contributions, and Mr Hornsby never suggested to witness that he was going to send in a claim to the company. To Mr Cassidy : Witness had told Mr Hornsby that there were opportunities for promotion in the establishment. Witness had no intention to change the policy of the Star when Mr Hornsby took fcbe position of editor. Witness never had a conversation with Mr Hornsby in regard to the latter receiving payment for work done for the Lyttelton Tmes. The article on “ The Industrial Exhibition” was the best article witness received from Mr Hornsby, and witness thanked him for it. Witness never mentioned anything about payment. The charges made by Mr Hornsby for some of the articles in the claim were in any case excessive. He had never authorised payment to a member of the literary staff for a special contribution. C. Hull, editor o! the Star, stated that it had not been the practice at the defendants’ office to pay a member of the literary staff for contributions outside his ordinary duties. J. C. Wilkin, manager of the Lyttleton Times Company, stated that the editor had no authority to pledge the credit of the company for contributions by members of the literary staff. It was not (rue that he (witness) had promised to give Mr Hornsby remuneration foe articles contributed to the Lyttelton Times. Mr Hornsby was engaged as editor of .the Star by resolution of the Directors, and any articles ne contributed to the Lyttelton Times were, witness thought, contributed voluntarily. To Mr Cassidy: Witness had given a bonus to a member of the literary staff for work done outside his ordinary duties. It was a common thing. in the office for members of the staff to send in contributions for the three papers. They were not specially paid for these contributions. This was the defendants’case. -

Mr Wilding submitted that the services rendered by Mr Hornsby were rendered without any arrangement having been made as to payment. Thera was no contract or intention on either aide that Mr Hornsby was to be paid for work done for the Lyttelton Times. Mr Hornsby never made any demand for payment until two or three months ago, and the first intimation the defendants received of the claim was a letter from Mr Hornsby’s solicitor. If Mr Hornsby had held the position of editor of the Star, and had not been dismissed, would he have sent in this claim? He (Mr Wilding) thought not. There was no evidence before the Court from which the Court i could infer that Mr Hornsby had made a

contract with the company to be paid for these services. Mr Cassidy submitted tb&t it was not necessary to prove an express contract. I ’.'here had, he said, been an implied con'■raot. The plaintiff had done tbe work, and the company had reaped the benefit of it. His Worship said he had no hesitation in holding that the plaintiff had completely failed to prove any liability ,on the part of the company. Ho was also strongly of opinion, apart from the contradictory evidence that had been given, that it was never contsmplated that the articles would be charged for. Judgment would therefore be given for the defendants with costa.