IT PAYS TO ADVERTISE!

NZ Truth, Issue 1062, 1 April 1926, Page 7

IT PAYS TO ADVERTISE!

(From "Truth's" Special Auckland Representative^)

/ -j^» OMB time m the' not very (^^f remote past, Samuel Old/j&/\ field* who is well known -m mtiSarfdk Auckland as an aspirant for H\tßß|a|i political fame, purchased fSIBBSBI the interests of the Petherick Patent Advertising System, Ltd. In actual cash he paid over the lor.djy sum of £25 to the previous proprietors of the system for certain mechanism and accessories. 3 He agreed at the same time, it ap- ', pears, to pay a small royalty for each *_ Week that the advertising device was m use.! . i Oldrteld was able to convince Jack i South Lomas Stewai't, of Auckland advertising fame—if any convincing were needed— that he had his hands on a cinch o£ a proposition. . A partnership was entered, into between the two men, Stewart agreeing 1 to pay Oldfield £125 for a halfshare of his interests. The agreement (specified that they' should '■'exploit" the said patent for their -mutual benefit." The net profit made during- the three months previous to the part- - nership was .to belong- to each man m equal shares. From Stewart's share m the scheme GO per cent, was to be deducted each quarter to Oldfield .until £1000 had been paid, exclusive of profits. In substitution of this, Stewart later C'-nceded certain advertising rights he had at Carlaw Park. Embodied m the agreement were the following interesting words: "Each of them will be just and faithful to the other." Stewart discovered that the vendor had only paid m actual cash £25 for his rights to the old syndicate. He was upset; he wrote and up- . braided his partner. . [ Misrepresentation was the term he used, and he demanded a refund o£ £112 10s, the difference between the half -share paid by him and that paid by Oldfield. . . The latter replied that there had . been no misrepresentation, and added: "Any claim to establish

A well-worn adage has it that there is money m advertising 1 . There is— for some of the parties concerned, but it ' is only when those who make the money fall out that the public discover how it is possible to fall m.

such claim and misrepresentation will be followed by a counterclaim for libel and defamation." .. This aroused the ire of the advertising .man. Without undue delay, he' s^ed his partner for a return of the money which he considered had beea obtained by misrepresentation. , The case was fought out before Magistrate Poynton recently. Counsel Inder sponsored Oldfield, while Mr. McLiver appeared for the complainant. . It was a wordy warfare while it lasted. ■ , ; The complainant, being an advertis.ing ■ man, does not belong m the ".strong and silent men" class, while fhe defendant, having been a candidJite for Parliamentary honors—socalled — fully, appreciates the power of words. But to boil down the facts which, came to light, it was divulged that the . new syndicate had rop ed m two more partners to share m the. respective profit 0 : at £:2500 "a head. /.That a busi* ness proposition on which t h'e\ original outlay m- cash , was £25 should be able to- en- : 'ti.ee £5000 m . hard cash is no small -^achieve--ment. Though the actual statement of the assets purchased by Oldfield showed . on paper that he had to all intents cii'd purposes paid £250, the endant 1.-. the box swore that Stewart knew perfectly well when purchasing a halfshare that his future partner had' only paid £25. Of course, Stewart may have been misled, es. there were words on the final receipt m ■'. Oldfield's handwriting: "Purchased for £250." Counsel Inder, for his client, claimed a non-suit on the grounds that Stewart had sustained no loss. Having listened to a very practical demonstration between two very able business men on the theme of haw to make money by advertising, Mr. Poynton found for the. defendant. The partnership, however, did not fall m one of its objects. It can be said that they did well and truly "exploit the said patent for their mutual benefit."