CROSSWORD PUZZLE PRIZE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 58, 10 March 1927, Page 11

CROSSWORD PUZZLE PRIZE.

QUEEN COMMITTEE SUED. PLAINTIFF GETS JUDGMENT. (By Telegraph.—Special to "Star. " WELLINGTON, this day. Reserved judgment was given by Mr. Page, S.M., to-day in a case in which Andrew St. George Hickson claimed £15 from the Artillery Queen Committee as first prize ni a cross word puzzle advertised by defendants. It was stated at the hearing that plaintiff had been advised that his solution was the most nearly correct, and had entitled him to the third prize of 10/. Although he claimed first prize since, contending that his solution was the best one received, the committee refused to allow anything more than a third prize. Their answer was that the competitor was debarred by the conditions from claiming first prize unless his solution was entirely correct, and that the committee's decision was final, this having been stated in an advertisement of the puzzle. "The conditions do not, in express terms, state that only the correct solution will entitle a competitor to the first prize," said Mr. Page after reviewing the facts. "As there are three prizes of varying amounts, it is obvicfus that, even if the first prize is to be awarded only to a correct solution, the second and third prizes at all events are to go to competitors whose solutions are not wholly correct. That being so, it is difficult to see on what ground plaintiff, whose solution is admittedly the best, can be refused at least the second prize advertised. The conditions are capable of two interpretations, either that the first prize is to go to the best solution received or that it is to go to the correct solution. In competitions of this nature, where the language used is equally capable of two interpretations, it is to be construed most strongly against the party that make the offer. If it had been intended that the first prize should be awarded to those only who gave the answer correctly it would have been easy to state so." His Worship held, further, that the contention that the committee's decision was to be accepted as final did not avail defendants, as it was clear that they had no power under such a clause to alter the conditions nor vary the contract. Judgment -was entered for the full amount claimed.