The Express.
London, England, 1862-12-09 00:00:00

SECOND COURT.

Sittings at Nei Prim in Loaden.—(Before Mr. Justice
Willes and a Common Jury.)

CONRAN V. JANI.M.-MALE OF AN ADVERTISING COLUMN.

This waa an action to recover damages upon the ground
that the plaintiff bad been induced to purchase an
illurui-
naad advertising column by false representations.
Mr. fferjeant Pigott and Mr. T. Jones appeared for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Brown for the defendant.
The plaintiff was a chemist and druggist, and the de-
fendant was a Venetian blind-maker in business in Fins-
bury-place. On the 21st March last the plaintiff saw an
advertisement in the Times in these terms :—" To Ladies
and Gentlemen.—For 150/. an established income of 2001. •
year without occupation. Apply personally to Messrs.
Sloper and Co., 51, Moorgate-street, City." He called
upon Mr. Sloper, and the result was that he purchased of
the phsiotiff the illuminated advertising column which
stands between the end of the City-road and Finsbury-
square, the price being VV., of which 1001. was paid in
cast, and the rest by bills, of which one for 35/. was still
outatanding.
The plaintiff, in his evidence, stated that Mr. Sloper told
bin' that the column was so good a thing that he should
like to purchase it himself, and should be very glad to give
30 per cent. for money to enable Lim to do so. He said the
income from the coloran was 2001. • year; that there were
34 advertisements at 3s. • week each, and that it was better
than advertised. Witness at his suggestion left 10e
deposit, and at the next interview Mr. Eloper told him that
he bad succeeded in getting it for him ; that it was very
fortunate witness had left the 10e, as there were several
people after it, and be was secured the preference. A short
time after the purchase, when witness complained to the
defendant and asked for his money back, the defendant said
that Mr. Sloper had misrepresented the fact if he said that
the income was 2001. a year.
. .

Witnesses were also called to prove that there were not
so many advertisements aa represented, that many of them
were exhibited without authority, and were not paid for,
aed that where payments were made they were generally
about 21. inatmid of Se. a week. Another circumstance was
that the orders for these expired in the same month as the
plaintiff made his purchase.
Mr. Hawkins submitted that there was no evidence for
the jury that the defendant ever authorised Mr. Sloper to
m►ke the representations in question.
Mr. Justice Willes thought that there was some evidence
from which the jury might presume authority, and he added
that he would consider thereafter whether he ►hould reserve
leave to the defendant to move. _ _

Mr. Janes, the defendant, was then called, and he said
that the column originally belonged to the Illuminated Ad-
vertising Company (Limited), but, that company failing, he
purchased it in February, 1861, and be speut between 401.
and 101. in renovating it, and in putting some paving round
it. He also was put to considerable trouble in carrying on
negotiations with the pariah authorities to allow the column
to remain in its place. From March. 1861, to March, 1862,
be received for advertisements 761. fr., his expenses were
171. 125., and his net income 58/. 14e. if the column had
been fall of advertisements in every part, at 2s. 6d. per
week each. the produce would have been 364/. a year. He
never instructed Mr. Slope, to sell it ; but having called
upon him on other business, he aid that he would
sell if a. customer were found, suid he should ex-
pect about 100/. net. He told Mr. Sloper that
the whole of the advertisements would run out the next
week, and that he should sell the post without any ad-
vertisemest. Witness distinctly told him not to advertise
it, for he was afraid that if the parish authorities knew that
it was advertised, they would order him to take it down.
He never saw the advertisement in the Timer.
Cross-examined—He believed that the column was
honestly worth all that the plaintiff gave for it. Witness
bought the column at a public sale fur 9/. 15e., but it ori-
ginally cost 1801., moths auctioneer said. Withers contended
that the plaintiff had a bargain, and he would not have sold
it if be had thought that it brought in PO much as it did.
Mr. Sloper was to have half of all he could get beyond 701.,
so that he would get 401. by the job.
Mr. Sloper said that Mr. Janes told him not toadvertise
the column. Witness would not have hesitated for a
sourest to pnrchue the column himeelf, if he had had the
mosey to spare; and he said that Le would give 15 or 29 per

cent. for the money to do so. It wm distisetl7 understood
that the podsdawas mold without any continuing salver-
;Memento. He newer said that jt would bring in 2001. a year,
bet be made a calculation of what it would bring in, if all
the spasm were let. He admitted that the terms of his ad-
tertimesset were rather overstrained.

Mr. Justice Willes told the jury that the questions which
they had to consider were, whethersthe plaintiff was induced
to enter into the bargain by material representations which
were untrue ; and whether Mr. Sloper bad authority from
the plaintiff to make them.
The jury at once found for the plaintiff for 150/.. a sum
which it was arranged should be reduced to 115/., upon the
35/. bill being given up.

SHORT v. TBINDLII.—AIKUOLT.
This was an action to reoover damages for an volt, and
there were alaocounts for wrongfullydsmissing the plaintiff
from hie employment, and for • week's wages.
Mr. Ribtoo and Mr. Braley appeared for the plaintiff ; and
Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Griffite for the defendant
The plaintiff had been in the service of the defendant, •
job magier, at St. John's-wood, and in July last he was en.
gaged to attend upon the Hon. Miss Kiunaird, with a
brougham for a month. On the 7th July he was employed
all day in driving that lady and certain members of her
establishment, and bad nothing to drink until night, when
the butler gave him • glees of whisky and the butler's wife a
glass of ale. As be was nearing his master's yard about
eleven at night he felt very unwell, and having with
difficulty driven into his 11)41Ws yard, his head
I stink upon his hand and he became insensible, and continued
so for some time. The defendant was fetched, and be
asserted that the plaintiff was drunk, pulled him off the
box and knocked him about, committing three separate
assaults upon him. He wan so hurt that for three months
he could not go to work, and he felt the effects even now.
The plaintiff's own description was that be was so knocked
about that be had not • feature left, and hie wife only knew
him by his clothes—(laughteri—and he denied that he was
i drunk, or that he was n the habit of getting drnnk, though
be admitted that when he felt cold and wanted • " nerver"
he did take adrop. Renewed laughter.)
A witness, who mid he saw some part of the assault, also
said that the plaintiff was sober. Witness likewise was
sober, though he sometimes took • drop, and hr bad
had something to drink when, on the sth November, he
WWI carried about VI a guy—(laughter)—or he should not
have made such • fool of himaelf. He was called "Jack
Ketch ;" out he had been so christened by the defendant,
and unfairly, too, because he was not • Jack Ketch.
A cabman who took the plaintiff horns said that he was
so knocked about that you could not see his eyes at all
and Mrs. Short said that he was saturated with blood, and
was confined to his room for five or six weeks.

Several witnesses were called for the defence, the main
fact, relied on being that the plaintiff was drunk—dead
drunk. That when the defendant, who had been knocked
up from bed, came, be found the plaintiff lying back in the
brougham fast asleep, and he tried in vain to rouse him.
At length he was roused, and he at once began striking the
defendant, who had hold of him with one arm and was sup-
porting himself by bolding the brougham with the other.
The plaintiff pitched forward on to the dash iron whilst
defendant had hold of his collar, and upon being set upon
his legs be struck out again, and then the defendant hit him
with his right hand. lie remained in the yard some time,
until the defendant took him by the collar and dragged him
out, he all the while trving to bite and strike the defendant.
The jury found for the plaintiff, damages 101.