EXHIBITION LAWSUIT

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 61, 17 December 1907, Page 2

EXHIBITION LAWSUIT

Per Press .Association. Wellington, Monday. The hearing of the case Scutt v. the king, arising out of the alleged ejectment of exhibitor from the Exhibition premises, was continued to-day. The general manager, Mr. (J. S. Munro, was truss - examined at length. Witness staled that when the tender of Scott was accepted he was not promised any consideration and he never received any. All he ever got for helping Scott was a betrayal of confidence. "The presumption," witness added, "is that Scott gave me something to do it, and i want the world to know 1 got nothing for it." Asked if he had not quarrelled with tho Commissioners, witness said he did not think he had. They had resigned because they could not do things they wished to do.

VERDICT FOR £ISOO. Per Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. At the conclusion of evidence in the. case of Scott against the International Exhibition, the following issues framed by counsel, and 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 be determined by the Court. The jury, after deliberating for two and three-quarter houra, returned the answers appended:— (1) Dm George S. Munro bring to the knowledge of the plaintiff the minute in red ink at the foot of the letter exhibit X * (This' exhibit has inference to a minute of the Commissioners, who authorised the acceptance of plaintiff's tender, subject to hies entering into a proposal and approved contract)— No. (2) Did George S. Munro revoke and determine the right or license to occupy the space granted to the plaiutill' for exhibiting his goods?— Yes.

(3) Did O. S. Munro seize, detain, and convert to the use of the Coiiimi.-riioneis tlic goods and property of the plaintiff contained in such last-mentioned space? —Yes.

(■4) Did G. S. Munro revoke and determine the right or license to occupy the sale stands granted to the plaintiff?— Yes.

(5) Did G. S. Munro seize, detain, and convert to the use of the Commissioners the goods and property of the plaintill' contained in such sale stands?— Yes.

((!) What damages is the plaintiff entitled to—(a) in respect of the exhibition stand?—£soo; (b) in respect of the sale stands?—£looo. The total amount of the verdict for the plaintiff is therefore £ISOO. The motion for judgment was reserved, and also all questions of costs.