The Sun.
London, England, 1863-08-14 00:00:00

COURTNAY V. WAGSTAFFS---REED V. SAME.

These were two actions by reporters engaged on the late
Iron Times, a penny paper, which started in January and
expired in March, against the supposed proprietors, on
alleged contracts to employ them for the Parliamentary
Session of that year. The defendant denied his liability
upon such a contract.

Mr. Denman, Q,C., Mr. Prentice, and Mr. H. W. Sharp
appeared for the plaintiffs; Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr.
Hanmen were for the defendant.

The two actions were by consent tried together, and were
commenced yesterday. It appeared that there were other
actions pending by other parties.
Mr. Denman, in opening the case for the plaintiffs, stated
that it was of the first importance for any newspaper to
secure the services of good reporters. The defendant was a
merchant and a gentleman who had been proprietor of the
paper, although the contracts were actually made by a Mr.
Holt, the editor. The defendant, he believed, disputed his
liability, on the ground, partly, of want of authority. But
he believed that the authority would be amply estabiished.
The defendant, who was engaged in various undertakings,
was the proprietor of the paper, and had taken an active
part in its management. On one occasion he had threatened
to dismiss the manager, a Mr. Morgan, who would be called.
On another occasion he had given directions as to an article
of intelligence he deemed of importance. He also was con-
sulted on various matters, and assumed authority as owner.
As to the rest of the case, the plaintiffs had been dismissed
in the midst of a session, and, of course, too late to find other
engagements, and were entitled to their salary to the end of
it, as, in the absence of evidence of an undertaking to the
contrary, the engagements were clearly for the Session.
The plaintiff in the first case was called in support of his
case. He met Mr. Holt, he said, on the 2d of January at

the office of the Weekly Times, and was told by him that
he was engaged in starting the Iron limes, and afterwards
on another occasion he met Holt at the office of the latter
paper, when he was engaged for the ensuing session as re-
porter, at £3 3s. a week ; and in the meantime to " write
letters and paragraphs." Nothing was said then as to the
proprietor. Tim witness said he had been engaged for five
or six years as a Parliamentary reporter, and there was a
general custom that such reporters were engaged for the
session.
Mr. Hawkins objected that there could hardly be a cus-
tom as to a paper not yet started.
The learned Judge said there might be a general custom
among newspapers, whether or not it applied in this case.
The witness repeated his statement of the cue om, and
stated also that usually the editor or manager engaged the
reporters, and that afterwards his salary was increased to £5
5s a week. Parliament began in February, and in the mean-
time he was paid a guinea a week for the letters, &c.
He
was paid by one Hooper, a clerk of the defendant, and the
defend ant was often at the office conversing with Mr. Holt,
the editor, or with Mr. Alpass, the foreign editor, or Mr.
Morgan, the manager. The witness went on to prove direc-
tions given by the defendant. On one occasion,
having seen
Mr. Wagstaffe there talking to Mr. Holt, witness said to the
latter after the defendant had gone, " Is that the capitalist r'
(A laugh.)
Mr. Hawkins objected to this, and it was withdrawn, and
he then cross-examined the witness, and elicited that some
years ago Mr. Holt (who was a good deal connected with
newspapers) started another paper called the Iron limes, and
the witness was engaged upon it. He was asked whether
he was not present at a meeting of the reporters at Holt's,
at which the defendant was not present, and this he ad-
mit ed. He was pressed as to whether Holt had not said he
was starting the paper with money advanced to him by a
friend, and this he denied. What he said the witness stated
was " Well, we're going to bring the old Iron limes out
again.
They have plenty of money." He admitted that
Holt said that if the paper succeeded different engagements
might be made, and he was pressed whether Holt did not
say that if it became a regular established paper the re-
porters' engagements would be placed on a permanent foot-
ing, and that he denied. He admitted that the last engage-
ment
he had as a Parliamentary reporter was on the Morn-
' ing Chronicle, and was weekly, but he had had a sessional
engagement on the Morning Chronicle.
Re-examined by Mr. Denman, the witness said that
Holt had brought out the old Iron Times partly on his own
account, but he knew that Holt had not the means to bring
out a paper on his own account, and he never heard that
Holt had any advances to enable him to do so.
Mr. Alpass, who had been foreign editor of the paper, and
was always at the office, often saw the defendant there
watching how things went on, and sometimes talking to the
witness, looking at the witness as he was translating from
foreign papers. and discussing matters with him, and he had
heard him say to Morgan, the manager, "If you can't do
better than this I must find your successor." Witness
(who edited in the absence of Holt) had also consulted the
defendant as to the money articles, &c. He also had heard
the defendant speak about announcements of companies he
was connected with.

It appeared that Holt himself received a salary.
Several other witnesses gave similar evidence, but it was
elicited that their actual knowledge or experience applied
rather to old-established papers, and one of them admitted,
on cross-examination, that he had heard that thr defendant
had advanced money, and had said that he could not ad-
vance any more.

The evidence in the case of both plaintiffs was very much

the same.

At the close of their case,
The learned Judge threw out that, without at all pre-
judging the disputed questiou of the defendant's liability, it
might be a fit case to be amicably arranged.
Mr. Hawkins said he would gladly have assented to that
suggestion, but there were other parties in other actions
not now present. The learned counsel then stated the case
for the defence, which, as already indicated by the line of
hie cross-examination, was in substance this, that the de-
fendant had merely advanced money to Holt to assist him
in starting the paper, but was neither his partner nor his
sibly
l
eniployer, lie contended that the defendant could not pls.
be liable, except either as partner with Holt or as his
principal,
twheasdnefoetnad case &her of partnership
or of principal and agent.
Holtaadthafodran
desired to start a
paper and and
applied thatied this
to is
e fornd eado,maencdon'tthani advance of
money to assist him in so doinguwlaastinexgp the latter consented tt. do
moneyso'
o over the way in which
the atip
Thwoulted aecotmt for the
alleged interference on his part.
advance was made were embodied in an
avgrnirees monenwt hbeicthwethene
them in January, 1862, which the learned
t£ll,ooo to
1
an.nsel read the
effect being that the defendant should advance Holt for the purpose of bringing out and editing
and should have the property and copyright as a security
and and that the £l,OOO should be a charge on and payablerlouY't
of the profits, but should not be any personal obligation on
power
sppointn ent and removal of all persons employed on and
Holt, and that the defendant should have absolute