AN EXHIBITION SQUABBLE,

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2065, 17 December 1907, Page 2

AN EXHIBITION SQUABBLE,

Press Association. WELLINGTON, Dec. IC. .During the hearing of the. suit brought by iGeo. Scott against the Crown, for £4500 damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff gave evidence that a number of retail vendors sent in. tenders. Dir. Dlunro, -general manager, showed- him the figures, but not- the names, and gave him the option, of tendering above them in on© compact tender. AVitness added: “If he has given me away I must give him away.” Counsel af r terwards suggested that this was a convenience, and saved tlie Exhibition authorities trouble in dealing with a.-lot of scattered tenders, an 3 there was nothing wrong in it. Mr. Justice 'Button remarked that witness apparently thought there was something wrong in it. Mr. Dlunro, manager, giving evidence to-day, said he gave Scott the aggregate tenders, and the latter altered iiis tender, which was then accepted by the Commissioners, subject to certain minute alterations. AVitness was not promised any consideration by Scott, and he never -received any. His Honor: Do you think-it was quite fair to other exhibitors to allow Scott to do that ? AA’itness: I did n-ot, your- Honor. Should -I be asked that? ~ 'His Honor: “Yes, I think so.. It was-between you and' Dir. Scott. iHe was just as much in it as you!”- After a pause, his Honor said; .“Very well, you don’t think it quite fair. Still_ you allowed it?”. .-.y AVit-ness: Yes, your Honor. I would like to say that all I ever got for helping ’Scott was the betrayal of confidence that occurred on Friday. - ■ •-■-i- • --. r Mr. Skerrett: This statement you volunteeered is rather a confession and not an explanation. AVllat was the motive that made you put yourself in a worse light? AATtness: The presumption was that Mr. Scott gave me. something to do it, and I wanted the world to know that I got (nothing for it. Mr. -Skerrett-: A\ r as it in spite towards I Air. Scott-? AA'itness: No. Dir. Skerrett : Have yOil not threatened him to’do it'?’** ’ v!-’ u . AVitness-: No. I told Scott I would be fair to myself. La-tor on counsel asked Dlr. Monro if lie- could give- him the name of one Commissioner he had not quarrellled with during file time of tlio Jlxhibition. AAUtness repudiated the suggestion, and said- that- if lie-had a list of the Commissioners and concessionaires lie could give him six or - seven hundred. “ After that the jury wanted to- have C. D. Mclntyre called as a witness, because he had been- detailed to close Scot-t-’s'stalls, blit it -was not prtr-ssed. At tho conclusion of the evidence in the case iScott against the International Exhibition, the following issues, framed by counsel, and l of which the -Court approved, .were submitted to the jury, it having been agreed that on the motion for judgment any other question of fact not inconsistent with the finding of the jury might he determined by the Court./ Tlie jury after deliberating for two hours and three-quarters -returned the answers appended : —(1) Did George Munro bring to the knowledge of the plaintiff the minute in tred ink at foot of the latter exhibit? (This exhibit has reference to a minute of’the Commissioners, who authorised the acceptance of plaintiff’s tender,, subject- to his entering into a proposal-end -approved contract). —No. (2) Did G. S. Dlunro revoke and determine tlie right or license to occupy the space granted to the plaintiff for exhibiting Ins goods ?—Yes. (3) Did Gk-S. Munro seize, detain, and Convert to the use of the Commissioners-the goods and property of the -plaintiff contained in such last-mentioned space ? Yes. (4) Did G. S. Mumrd revoke and determine the right or license.to occupy the sale stands granted' to plaintiff ? Yes. (5) Did G. S. Dlunro / seize, detain, and convert to the use/ of the Commissioners the goods- and property of the plaintiff contained in such sale stands?—Yes. (6) AVhat damages is tlie plaintiff entitled to—(a) in- respect to the Exhibition stand?—£soo; (b) in respect of/the sale standts?—£looo. , • 'The total -amount of the verdict for plaintiff is therefore £ISOO. The motion for judgment was reserved, and also all questions of costs-.