THE TILIKUM'S VISIT.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11590, 22 May 1903, Page 2

THE TILIKUM'S VISIT.

A COURT CASE,

John W. Marcey (Mr Mailer) ye!-terd.ay .«ued Captain J. C Vows, of tlieTilikuni, before Mr Bcethntn, to recover-the sum of £10, alleged to bo due for promoting and arranging a gal* at Sumner. Plainufi stuted that one afternoon in April he met thti captain of tho Ti!iknsn, and suggested an exhibition of the soa-anehor at Numner. After discussion, Vo?s fell in witli the suggestion, and wanted witness to "run the "show." Plaintiff took the matter in hand, nnd introduced Captain Yoss Jto Mr Wood, manager of the Tramway Company, av.<\ it was agreed thivr a palii «wrrice of trams be put on, £40 bein.: iinst allowed the company for working .'X[>enpey, and half the balance of the returns for that afternoon cm tho lii» to cro to Captain Vims.. Tho sum handrd to Captain Vt««s by Mr Wood was £48. Plaintiff, who considered that under his arrangeji>rnt he whs entitled to £10, had been offered £2 by Mr Donald, Captain Voss's mrmappi , , but lie refused it. Mr Andrews (who a-ppc-iivd for Captain Voas) read the evidence taken at Wellington, in which Captain Vose denied that Massey had first suggested the exhibition of the sea-anchor at Sumner, or that lie had engaged his services in any capacity. Massey had introduced hinwelf "to Captain Voss at an exhibition of the Tilikum, and had appeared friendly, but that was ail. A. Donald, Oiptain Vow's manager and partner. «aid that he wae in the habit of conducting similar exhibitions to that jriven by Captain Vose at .Strmner, and required no assistance in making his arrangements. They had never <*nsrag«l Massey, O r made any fionnciil arrangement with him. Maese? had'«.iid before the exhibition: "If you r»t £150,1 suppose I'm on for a fiver. ,, and Donald, taking this to be ft jocular remark, said: "Yes, if we do." After the exhibition, Donald had offered £2 to M«beey. but he declined it. Plaintiff was th«n cross-examined by Mr Andrews, ar.d stated that a portion of his claim was for suggesting the sea-anctior exhibition. The Bench pointed out that the plaintiff swore ho suggested the sea-anchor exhibition on April*l3th, and yet on April 11th there had appeared a paragraph stating tna* the exhibition would take place. Mr Wood, manager of the Christcfeurch Tramway Company, stated that- Ma.«*ier introduced Captain Vc*s to him. fint* arrangements were made with Mr Donald. Mr Massey's introduction had cotliing to do with the arrangements made. > His Worship intimated that pkintiff ap-

peared to have very little to go upon ia has claim, in fac* ofthe evidence of Captain Voss and Mr Donald. Mr Mnlley wgned that the offer of £2 ■tras evidence that Massey's services had been engaged. His Worship said tnat I>efore conumwion could be claimed for services rendered, there muwt be the clearest proof of the engagement cf the services. If an arrangement were made, Mr Mas*ey «ho.uld have provided himself with a witc«», or have bad the matter reduced to writin". The only possible scintilla of evidence that involved the defendant at all was the admitted offer of £2 to Mnssey by Donald. Judgment irouid be for the defendant, with costs.