DISTRICT COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5669, 31 May 1879, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Embay, Mat 30. - (Before his Honor Judge Mansford.)

E. T. GILLON, MANAG Elt Oi 1 .THE PRESS ABSO- - V. THE NEW ZEALANDER' NEWSPAPER COMPANY#

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, as manager of the Press Association, against the New Zealander Newspaper Company to recover the sum of £197 6s. Bd. for the alleged value of certain telegrams supplied to them by the association. Mr. Sievwright appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Stafford for the defendant.

Mr. Senior deposed that he was Secretary to the Company. Ho admitted that monthly accounts had been furnished by Mr. Gillen, and payments had been made on account. E. T. Gillon deposed that an agreement had been made with the association under which the New Zealander Company had agreed to pay £SO per annum towards the management expenses, and £225 per annum for the use of the special wire. Mr. Senior, recalled, admitted having paid the account furnished by Mr. Gillon for the first two months. He did so in accordance with the contract made with the association.

Mr. Stafford submitted that the agreement was not'as yet made out. . In answer to his Worship witness said that as a member of the association he agreed to pay certain'sums to the association for telegrams. 1 ' i ' • Witness then continued : He could not tell that all the telegrams mentioned in the list of particulars had been received by the New Zealander Co. That was more a question for the editor or acting editor to decide, but not the manager. £lB 15s. was a month’s proportion of the £225 per annum, and £l2 10s was a quarter of £SO per annum. In 'answer to his Worship, witness said he could not say whether or not all the telegrams mentioned had been received. " Mr; Sievwright then continued his re-exami-nation. Witness was present at a meeting of members of the Press Association when an arrangement was made in regard to preliminary expenses, ’ ' 'Mr, ■ Sievwright asked the witness what arrangement was arrived at, but Mr, Stafford objected, anbmittiug that what took place between the association and witness had nothing to do with the present action. The question was not pressed, Witness continued: Ho was not personally a member of the association. He agreed on behalf of the New Zealander Company to pay a fair share of tie preliminary expenses in connection with the association. Ha never told Gillon directly that his charges were excessive, hut' had certainly said so to the directors of the New Zealander Company. He told them that ho would not pay them. He was not aware thatGillon based his overcharge on the ground that the line would be kept open longer than usual. Gillon had asked for pay-; ment. ■ Witness had promised to pay, and had brought the matter before the New Zealander Company. He had had an interview with Gillon regarding the payment of telegrams. '■MV. Stafford again objected, stating that the contract should be produced. .If the present line of re-examination were allowed his client would 6hly‘ drop into a trap. His Worship remarked the contract would answer for itself. ' ' :

" AVI fences continued ; He 'wag present at a 'meeting of the association before any contract 1 yras made.,: He tad not paid the money for a ; good reason. ' He had'no monpy to pay. He " did not remember ever beihg authorised by the • directors td pity. He never asked the directors for any money because he knew they, had hone to give. Udlon is manager of the'.Press Association. Witness was one who voted him as nianager.' Gilldn had no interest in it himself. Witness during .all, transactions always, ■■'treated Gildon’as manager or agent of the association.' Had these monies been paid they ■wduld'have belonged, to the association, and iibt &illon. At a meeting held in Hecember

it was proposed to appoint Giilon manager at a yearly salary of £350. He consequent!'.' looked upon him as a servant of the association. All accounts were made out iu the name of the association. Witness knew in a general way the powers of the directors of the JNew Zealander Company. There was certainly no power amongst its rules whereby the directors could enter into any contract. Witness was appointed manager of the company on the 30 th ot November last at a meeting of the directors.

B. T. Giilon, manager of the Press Association, stated that he had paid money out of his private account to the association. The association had no capital. When money was required cheques were signed by Mr. Duncan and witness. During the month of January witness made arrangements with the Press of Australia to supply the association here with cablegrams. These telegrams were divided amongst nine papers, subject to certain small reductions. All the telegrams as the particulars were received by the Aral Zealander, and iu most instances were delivered to one of the staff by himself. By Mr, Stafford : There is no money now owin" to me personally on this account. The association has an overdraft at the bank, for which, I believe, lam liable. I generally pay my t legraph line every week. I have sometimes paid for the telegrams by own cheque, but the money has always been repaid to me. The accouut at the bank is iu the name of the association. The cheques are signed by any member of the committee and myself. There is an overdraft. If this money sued for was recovered it would not go into my private account. The association. is supposed to be quite self-supporting. The account at the batik was opened by Messrs. Fenwick, Reeves, Duncan, Horton, and myself. Mr. Stafford contended that the plaintiff must be nonsuited on the following grounds : forced by the association and not by their agont. He cited Bowen v. Morris, 2 Taunton, 374 ; and Israel-v. Simmons, 2 Starke, ,356. (2.) That the contract, being a contract for two years, should be iu writing, and that it was not shown that it was made with the directors of the New Zealander Company. (3.) That the agent of the association was suing one of its own principals, the New Zealander Company, being a member of the association, having given no authority to sue. (4.), That the partnership must be shown to exist between the parties. Mr. Stafford then contended that the case had completely broken down. His Honor said at the outset he saw that the case was bristling with difficulties. The present Court was not a Court of equity but one of law. Mr. Sievwright thought his learned friend had misapprehended the claims under whicli they had sued, and thought the course adopted, by the defendant was most discreditable. Hia Honor replied that had nothing to do with the case. The question was purely one of law. He would grant a nonsuit on the Ist, 3rd, and 4th grounds, as stated by Mr. Stafford. He overruled the second objection, because he thought it had been sufficiently proved that the agreement had been made in writing, and that the names of the contracting parties were disclosed. The plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited. Mr. Sievwright reserved his right to appeal.