RUGBY UNION SUED

Hokitika Guardian, 8 October 1930, Page 3

RUGBY UNION SUED

over test match seats. (By Telegraph—Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Oct. 7. A case is pioceeding before Mi Page,: S.M., in which Gerald Lei its suing the Wellington Rugby Union in respect of seats winch he did not obtain for clients on tin occasion of the fourth test match against tire British Rugby team as the result of -alleged priority not being maintained. The claim is foi commission on a lost sale of 144 tickets at Is 6d each, £lO 16s; £54, representing the payment of 30s each to 36 peirsons employed by him to make purchase,; snd £2O general damages, a total of £B4. 16s. It was stated for plaintiff that he had established a theatrical connection in purchasing tickets for clients and it was claimed that the onus was otx the theatrical companies to see that priority was maintained, and that they did not do so, and that the legal position in regard to the Rugby Union orr this occasion wars the same. To the Magistrate, Counsel stated the claim was on the. basis of a breach of contract.. Plaintiff had employed 182 men to purchase 749 ticket*.

•Evidence was given'by a theatric;! box office employee, who said it waf Ins duty to see that order was maintained on the occasion of queues for the firm’s, performances, and by Bernard George Griffiths, who said he was the first man in the plaintiff’s set, and. :the twenty-ninth in the whole queue, in his opinion not more than. 260 people purchased tickets. . Plaintiff said himself he told Mi Murphy, a member of the Hugh; Union, that they ought to number th queue. Mr Murphy replied that they were running the show, and that ii was a case of first come first served. Bell contended that the New Zea land Rugby Union had committed breach of contract in selling less than the 14,000 tickets it had announced for sale for th© fourth Rugby tmt. For tho defence it was submitted that plaintiff; must be non-suited, as tin only contract existent was . that between plaintiff and his client,, wit’ j which. ithe pUnion . could not ,'bo concerned.

Mr E, Pago, S.M.,' reserved his decision on the nqli-suit, point. ! Mr Luckie, for ...the .plaintiff, said that tlm;'Tlnion allowed a • considerable plumber of applicants to obtaii tickets regardless. of the order of thr queue, al h retsplt-;.of which 30 mei erf.ployed by:; - .;the,.-plaintiff had heel shut ouit,;hnd.'he: liadi/lost the sale c 144 tickets', 'besides(peerlessly provid ing meals for. the; waiters.- Counsel contended the practice of theatrica companies ..was & form- queues, and .the management was responsible f 0,.. 'the order. The same; principle applied in this instance, he said. v. •Mr Perry, for the Union, declared the principle could not apply ; . to ajantatelir body sticli' as “‘the-- -Rughi/ 'Union, r In .any; case'the existence o ■oilstom had not. been proved. Th. Union-had. .offered to sell .four tickets tc hacli'applicant, and as plaintiff hat not applied for these, there had .therefore, been no breach of. contract.. -