COURT OF APPEAL.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13104, 1 May 1908, Page 8

COURT OF APPEAL.

A CHRISTCHURCH CASE

(TRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) WELLINGTON, April 30

The Court of Appeal was to-day occupied in hearing the case of Scott v. tho King. The action arose over the International Exhibition, the Commissioners of which, for consideration, had granted Mr Scott certain &p«;& lor the exhibition of biscuits and confectionery. Plaintiff claimed that his right was for the exclusive sale of same, but that subsequently tho Commissioners had granted similar rights to others. Plaintiff further alleged that tho Commissioners wrongfully entered into possession of the space granted him, and wrongfully took possession ot his confectionery. Plaintiff had claimed £3000 damages, and in the Lower Court the jury had awarded hiiff £1500. The following are the nonsuit points raised:—(l) That no grant or hconsc was disclosed on tihe facts of the- documents of letters; (2) if there was no such grant or license it had not been proved to laave boon entered into by the Commissioue-rs, and the general manager, as was alleged in the statement of claim; (3) if it was so proved it was not a contract entered into under the Crown Suits Act, 1881. for a.nd on behalf of tlw King; (4) that a concluded contract was nat j disclosed from tho letters or evidence a>t any date; (5) that tho ! jwaseseioiii by plaintiff was enj tered iiiiito only subject to a concluded contract being arrived at, and that the arrangements entered into !by him were onJy preparatory to such contract; (f>) that if this w«s so, plaintiff's possession was at any time terminable by reasonable notice being given to that effect; (7) that the Commissioners had no right to _ grant exclusive rights to any ono to sell tho articled mentioned under the by-laws , or otherwise. j Mr C. P. Skerrett, K.C., for tho j petitioner, contended that tho regulations made under the Exhibition Act and published in the New Zealand "Gazette" of 1000, which provided that no contract siu>uid bo 'binding unless made under seal., were ultra vires, no authority to make such regulations hay- I ing been given by tho Act. It was, ! therefore, not necessary that thero should be a formal contract under seal. ; The letters of tender and acceptauco rondo a complete contract, and tho stipulation ilurt a formal contract was to be drawn up did not prevent tho letters operating as a complete .con- ; tract. Mr Skerrett also contended that the Commissioners, in exercising their powers, were simply agents for the Crown, and the Crown was the principal in this contract. Therefore, tho action was within the Crown Suits Act. Mr Russell did not address tlio Court. . Mr Harper, on behalf cf the defendrants. contended, firstly, that tho Commissioners, having contracted (if they had contracted) in their own names, should have beem sued personally, and IK- action would lie against tho Crown. Moreover, the damages were partly given for a tort committed by Mr G. S. Munro, and tho Crown was not liabLo for torts committed by him, even if ho could he held to be an agent for the Crown at the time. Mr Harper admitted that Mr Munro had acted in a high-handed and unreasonable manner, but submitted that he was not authorised so to act by either the Crown or the other Commissioners. It had come out in evidence that Mr Munro had approached Mr Scott and shown him the other tenders for this concession., so that Scott could put in a higher tender than those already in and get the concession, and Scott*had altered his tender so as to make it higher than any of the others.\ Thia ' sflrt certainly wes not approved of, and was not even known of by the other Commissioners, which showed conclusively that Munro was acting on hie own responsibility. Tho Crown could not be held responsible for such acts. Mi* Harper had not concludied %is argument when tho Court adjournied until to-morrow.