St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-02-03
.HANDY'S CONTRACT is VOID
Judge Kelly's Review Of a Celebrated
Case.
NO MUTUALITY ABOUT IT.
A One Sided Agreement Properly Can
celed by the Globe
Company.

In the case of Egbert G.. Handy
against The st. Paul DAILY GLOBE, in
which the plaintiff attempted to en-
force specific performance of GER
tain contract, after alleged default by
himself, and in which the court de-
cided adversely to the plaintiff, the moe
ton for a new trial on the part of the
plaintiff was denied yesterday by Judge
Kelly.
The opinion of the court is as follows:
l am inclined to think that the al
legged contract sued on is void for want
OF mutually. 1t is certainly onesided,
and in many respects gives the plaintiff
undue advantage. He could charge
certain class of advertisers any price or
refuse them the use of the paper. He
on short notice, but the defendant could
not. 1t is very doubtful if the contract
obligates the plaintiff to do anything
except to pay defendant certain rates
upon defendants own advertising pat
ronage. On the trial held the contract
void. as violating the Sunday laws. The
contract sued on is dated Aug. l, 1885,
and was to continue until Aug. l, 1890,
with option to plaintiff to renew it at
the expiration of said term. During
that time it gives plaintiff ''entire
charge and control of the real estate adj
vertiSing business of said Globe COM
pany in the DAILY, SUNDAY and
WEEKLY GLOBE" 1t fixes the price
which plaintiff agrees to pay the Globe
Publishing company for all said real
estate advertisements which may appear
in the DAILY and WEEKLY or SUNDAY
GLOBE" leaving the plaintiff free to
charge the GLOBES advertising patrons
whatever rates he might
BE ABLE TO EXACT.
In effect it sells to the plaintiff for
five OF ten years ali or any part of the
advertising space in any of the editions
of the paper. A failure or refusal of
the Globe Publishing company to fur
niSh this space on demand would have
been a violation of this contract,
whether this failure arose from declin-
ing altogether advertisements rendered
by plaintiff, or by the discontinuance of
either of these editions of the paper. 1t
follows, therefore, from the reason of
the thing, that this contract carries with
it the necessary obligation of the Globe
Publishing company to publish a Sun
day edition during the life of the con-
tract or be mulcted in damages. That
the plaintiff SO understood it is evident
from this allegation in his complaint
corporation, prior to the 1st of August.
1885, had established in said city OF st.
Paul. was publishing and issuing daily,
Sunday and weekly editions OF said pa
per, and proposes to continue to pub
lish and issue in the future said news
paper and all its various editions" At
any rate, having so construed it, he can
not quarrel with the court for agreeing
with his own construction. The plant
ifs counsel admitted that
THE CONTRACT WAS VOID
if a daily newspaper is not a neees-
sity." The law forbids the ''d0ing of
any manner of labor, business or work,
except only works of necessity and
charity ON the Lords day, commonly
called Sunday" In my opinion every
inroad made upon its observance is, for
the state, a step downward. 1t has
been recognized by the supreme court
of Minnesota as not merely day fixed
for reasons of public policy as day of
rest, but as Gods day. l will not argue
the question as to whether the printing
and circulation of newspaper on Sun
day is necessity, such as Will take tout
of the statute and class it with works of
charity. The mere statement Of the
proposition, it seems to me-, carries its
own answer. But suffice it to say that
if it be conceded that the publication of
Sunday newspaper is necessary for
any purpose the issuance of ten or
fifteen extra pages of perhaps highly
colored and sensational real estate adj
vertisementS cannot be said, under any
state of facts, to be necessity.
s'On the whole case, l am still of the
opinion that the alleged contract is
yoid.o