The National Republican And Ohio Political Register

SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND.

September Term, at Providence.

PRINTER'S BILLS. William Simons vs. Benjamin W. Case. This was an appeal by defendant from a verdict against him at the Common Pleas, in May, 1826. It involved a question of some interest to Printers. Mr. Simons (at present one of the proprietors of the Providence Patriot, while Editor of the Newport Republican, and during the pendency of the question on adopting, by the People, the Constitution for this state, prepared by the Convention in June, 1824,) printed in hand-bills a piece called the Querist, designed to prevent the People from agreeing to the Constitution, which printing was done at the request of defendant; the article, as it turned out in the course of the trial, having been written by Benjamin Hazard, Esq.

Defendant, when he brought the article to be printed, did not agree to see plaintiff paid; but the work was charged to him at the time. It was contended in the defence that defendant was only one of a number who had agreed to bear the expense by raising a subscription, and that he did not get the piece printed on his own account, but for the good of the public, and which good it was the duty of a Printer to promote, without being paid extra for it. The plaintiff contended that he knew no person but the defendant in the transaction, and that he having applied to him to do the work, he looked to him for the pay. Argued by Patten and Bridgham, for plf. and Whipple for defendant.

The jury, recognizing the right of a Printer to be paid even for doing the public a service, at the request of an individual, returned a verdict for $38, and costs. The whole amount claimed by the defendant. The defendant appears to have objected to the payment from the circumstance of being left by his coadjutors to incur the whole expense, the sum raised by subscription having been appropriated to invigorate the cause of the individual constitutions of those who came to the polls to vote down the state Constitution, and the Printer, as usual, totally forgotten as soon as the voting was over. The moral to be drawn from the above case, which was undoubtedly decided on correct principles, is, that a Printer may be entitled to pay, even in cases where the public are supposed to be benefitted by the means used by him in incurring extra expenses to bring about a desired object, at the request of individuals, and that it is much easier to collect a subscription for such an object before, than after an election.