THE PICTURESQUE ATLAS CASES. Monday, October 20.

Otago Witness, Issue 1915, 23 October 1890, Page 15

THE PICTURESQUE ATLAS CASES. Monday, October 20.

(Before his Honor Mr Justice W iiams.)

BOWERMAH BROTHERS V. GRIEVE.

Case of appeal from the Resident Magistrate at Invercargill, before whom the case was heard on the 12th, 13th, and 14th August last. Sir R. Stout appeared for the appellants, Bowerman Brothers, New Zealand publishers of the " Picturesque Atlas," and Mr Chapman for the respondent, John Sibbald Grieve. — This matter was heard by his Honor on the Bth October. Judgment herein was given as follows :—

The magistrate wai right in deciding that where a book is published outside tbe colony the provisions of " Tbe Printers and Newspapers' Registration Act 1868," imposing a penalty where the printer's name and place of abode are not printed on the first and last leaf of the publication, do not apply. The fifth section of the act, whioh dlreots these pnrticniara to be printed, can only apply to books printed within the colony. The twentieth aeotion, which imposes a penalty on persons publishing a book "in whioh the name and place of abode of the printer thereof is not printed as aforesaid," must necessarily be limited to cases where there has been a breach of tbe requirements of section 5, The magistrate has deoided that the respondent, the defendant below, was not induced to enter into the contract by fraud or misrepresentation. The question then is whether the magistrate has decided erroneously in point of law in finding that it was a term of tbe contract that the publication was to be delivered in 42 separate parts at intervals of not less than one month. The magistrate has not and could not in his statement of the facts as found by him have decided that tbe contract was partly in writing and partly by word of mouth. A bare statement is found by the magistrate to have been made to the respondent by the canvasser that the respondent would get the work in monthly parts. This statement was admitted in evidence by the magistrate In order to explain what he considered to be an ambiguity in tbe written agreement. The printed document which Metoalf, tbe canvassing agent of the appellants, got the respondent 'to sign, was in form an order for the delivery of the work, embodying the terms upon whioh the appellants were prepared to deliver it and the respondent to pay for it.. There is no evidence that the agent had any authority from the appellants, except to procure the signature to orders in this particular form. On the contrary, it is expressly stated on the face of the document, and was thus brought to the knowledge of the respondent, that the agent was not authorised to change the terms of the printed agreement. After the dooument wai signed by the respondent, the publication was delivered by the appellants to the respondent ; but be refused to pay for it. His contention now is that there was to be an interval of not less than one month between the delivery of each part. This is in direct contradiction to the written dooument. The respondent there agreed to pay 5s for eaoh part when delivered, and the appellants are to deliver the parts as soon after publication as possible. As soon as the appellants are ready to deliver, and do deliver, the respondent binds himself to pay, Tbe provision in the dooument that the non-delivery of the publication at any specified time shall not release the subscriber from his obligation is manifestly for tbe protection of the appellants only, and cannot be construed as suggesting an intention that a new term was to be inserted in tbe contract for the benefit of the respondent, and that a time was to be specified prior to which he was not to be compelled to take delivery. I find no ambiguity in the document which requires or would justify the admission of parol evidence to explain it. The construction of a written document Is, of course, a matter of law for the court. Tbe written order having been thus given, the appellants adopted It simpliciter by supplying the goods in terms of the order, and all that has to be done now is for the respondent to pay for them. As the canvassing agent had no authority to do anything else but procure the signature of the respondent to the printed order, he oould not agree to add a parol term to tbe •igned dooument. The present case is in many respects similar to the oate of Hobaon v Browne, 9 0.8., N.S., 443. As the terms of the written document are plain, as the canvasser to the knowledge of the respondent had no authority to vary or add to them, as fraud or misrepresentation has been negatived by the magistrate, and as the goods have been supplied in terms of the written order, the only conclusion in law is that the appellants are entitled to recover for the goodß supplied.— Appeal allowed with costs.