|
'It does not follow that a bill inspector
is necessarily a bill discounter, though he sends in his little
bill at the end of the week - may be for weak work done, for such
it often is; and when the work is not properly done the manager
is, and the company, too, for that matter; for, without a good
show of bills, the show itself may culminate in a show up - the
natural result of bills due not being duly presented to the public.
A bill inspector when going his rounds should act on the square,
and, as he crosses from one hoarding to another, should be careful
not to hoard his employer's time, as he is paid to expend, as
well as to extend, it to the best advantage.
One bill inspector of my acquaintance expended both time and
money at the bar of a public-house, and that, we may conclude,
was a bar to business.
The duties of a bill inspector vary according to the notions
of the manager by whom he is employed. He is sometimes made use
of as a messenger, a packer, a chucker-out, and now and then as
an attendant of an evening in the lobby of the theatre; but in
his principal capacity, sometimes without any capacity, he rules
the roast over the bill-posters, and roasts those over whom he
rules, although probably he is guided by no particular rule, save
that of drawing the line within the lining of his own pockets.
Bill-posters, in relation to the, bill inspector, are supposed
to be thoroughly conversant with the art of palmology, a very
delicate process requiring careful and imperceptible manipulation;
if not, they are liable to be placed on the black list. If a bill-poster
be on more than familiar terms, as is sometimes the case, with
the bill inspector, the manager, in all probability, will find
that his bills are ruinously below par, and this involves a loss
of his legitimate profits. Some people speculate, others peculate.
Some bill inspectors do a service to themselves by hiring their
services to other managers, irrespective of the manager who has
engaged them specially, whereby they do more business on their
own account, and are less busy with the business of their legitimate
employers. Managers are probably not aware that their bill-inspectors,
some of them, at least are in the habit of killing more than two
birds with one stone.
A few of the bill inspectors are professional bill-posters, and
when such is the case it is but natural that number one should
take precedence of number two, which, like a step-child, as a
rule, is subject to neglect. Managers I have frequently heard
exclaim "I don't know how it is, but I can't see any of my
bills about!" He might also wonder what his inspector is
about, seeing he is supposed to go about his bills daily, and
yet is never seen about anywhere. Rainy weather is a capital auxiliary
to both inspector and poster; for it generally has to bear the
onus of any remissness on their parts. The rain, it is known,
gives but a very limited reign to posted bills; it washes them
away, and paves a way for the requisition of others, which, like
them, may be never posted at all. But whether the rain does or
does not destroy the bills, the bad weather is generally held
accountable for the bad account rendered at times by the inspector
as well as the poster.
|
|
|
A Theatrical Bill-Poster's
Squabble
At the Bloomsbury County Court, on
Friday, the case of Barnett v. England was heard before
Mr Judge Bacon. The plaintiff, a theatrical billposter,
of Hadley-street, Camden-town,
sued the defendant, a rival billposter in the same district,
to recover the sum of for damage alleged to be done to a
"station" belonging to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff said he had simply brought the action in
the interest of the trade, and although he only sued for
nominal damages, he trusted his Honour would rule in his
favour in order to deter others. From the plaintiff's evidence
it transpired that he rented, amongst others, a station
in College-street. The defendant had pasted his own bills
and a newspaper sheet over one of the Vaudeville
Theatre bills. He had no opportunity of checking these
transactions without bringing the matter into court, as
the defendant generally carried on his operations at night.
In reply to his Honour, the plaintiff said he could not
prove any special damage, but those Theatres whose bills
he displayed might sue him for a breach of contract if their
bills had been disfigured. Theatrical bill inspectors were
very sharp in doing their duty. The defendant, for whom
Mr Charles Williams appeared, said he was not aware that
the plaintiff's was a protected station, as he had considered
it as a "fly posting station." He had "shot"
at the plaintiff's name, for he had done the same by him.
It was one of the tricks of the trade.
His Honour considered the exigencies of the case met by
ruling in favour of the plaintiff, for one penny damages.
The ERA, 23rd of March 1879
- Courtesy BF.
|
|