THE EXHIBITION CASE.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 261, 28 July 1908, Page 4

THE EXHIBITION CASE.

, "CLAIM "AGAINST THE CRjOWN. £1500 DAMAGES ' AWARDED. . Tho next case in which judgment was given was that between. George Scott,'of Christchurch, ' cohfcctioner (claimant) and tho Crown (respondent)." Tho'facts,, that claimant was allowed "to-occupy a "display stall and sales stall at .the late New Zealand International Exhibition. On December > 25, 1907, tho authorities saw fit to exclude him from possession of the stalls. Claimant thereupon sued the Crown for £4500 damages.' The action was'heaTd inrDccembor last before Mr. Justice Button and^a-jury,-which awarded claimant £506'~(Iamages' in respect of tho alleged wrongful rcvocat'ibir of a license to hold a display stall, and £1000 in respect of tho alleged wrongful revocation of a licenso to hold '- a sales stall. Damages wove awarded on tho assumption that the .contract was a valid one, whiclv!,thcvjury.ifbnnd to havo been broken. 'At tho hp?i:iiig ,'ijt tho Court of Appeal tho following rion-suitVpoints were;argued:—.- . , -:(1) That'.there grant.or licenso disr, closed on tho face. oLtlie doouments or letters. (2) If there such grant or .licenso it had not been proved to havo been enterkl into by tho" Commissioners and the general manager as alleged.. • : (3);' If if wprb 8o;J»ovcd, was itTa contract entered into under tho Crown .Suits Act, 1881, for and oil bclia 1 f -of the, King? . !■ (4) Was thero a concluded contract, as disclosed from ...the., Jesters and evidence in any C&S6? : (p) Tho. possession by. claimant under tho •loiters" !was ari ,'ent£y,\only subject to t a concluded contract being arrived at, and tho arrangements- him wore preparatory only to such contract. ' . -.•(6)-If-that.wero,- plaintiff's position, was it .not-:terminablc by,, reasonablo notice bping given, to.ithat effect?;: .... ■ (7)-,. Th- Commissioners had no right to grant-exclusive.,.rights to. anyone to sell tho .articles-mentioned,:under the by-laws authorised:.. 1 . 1 ' ' .' Mr. Justice Williams, who presided at the '-hearing, of- the case;, said he was satisfied that .the Commissioners appointed under tho New Zealand'''lnternational. ■ Exhibition Empower-, •ing"Act,-.' 1905,'--were not an independent corporate entity capable of entering into contracts on its-owii'-bishalf, and of suing and being sued: ; Even if tho Commissioners had been a-corporate body the terms of tho Act showed 'clearly : enough that they wore intended: 'to"bo "the-'mere instruments of ,tho Executivo ' Government. Tho Commissioners wero"mado oxpressly subject to the direction's of-tho Colonial' Secretary, i.e., of tho Executive Government. The fact of tho Commissioners not" having been incorporated, coupled ;with the other provisions of tho Act, showed 'conclusively 'that it was not tho .intention''of the Legislature :that they should have any existence independent of tho Executive .Government. "That being so, a claim founded "upon any "contract relating to th» Exhibition 'entered' into by tho Commis"sion<}fs, .or ,by .any. other, person under tho express or implied; authority of tho Executives Government", .' would, by, Section 37 of tho Crown' Suits ,Act,.,.1881, be properly _ made against tho Crown .by a potition of right. In view ,of .'tho 'oxjwe'ss .provisions of 'the Act, it would-certainly:havo been ultra vires of :tho;. Gov,ornor, . in: .Council to croato tho Commissioners, a. .corporation or a quasi corporation,.. sp. as',to give "them a power to enter into \ contracts ■on . their own behalf, or to sue'and :be'sued.' _ '

The, claimant had, his Honour continued, two distinct claims —ono in respect of tho space for exhibiting goods, and- the other in respcot of stands for tho salo of articles. When the Exhibition was opened tho claimant occupied..tho space allotted, and exhibited bis goods there. It was to contend- that;.there, was not a contract entered, into'by the Exhibition Commissioners that ho should bo entitled to the use of the spaco allotted during the continuance of tho Exhibition. The claim in respect of the stands l for soiling was a different position. Tho respondent ; contended that tho correspondence did not create a binding contract, but that' it. contemplated .the execution of a subsequent formal contract before either party was bound.'After reviowing tho position,; his Honour!, said ho thought there was a' contract! complete in every particular, if Mr.' Mtinro' sufficiently represented tho Commissioners as" agents of the Crown to contract, unless' tho., stipulation as tot tho subsequent execution of t a.contract prevented tho parties being'bound. Mr. Munro was, at tho hearing in tho Supremo Court, asked tho following, question"From tho actual opening of the-Exhibition, and practically up till now, ha'vo you held tho position-of General Manager?""Ho had answered: "I was practically, tho General In tho first instance,' I was- Chairman df tho Executive Commissioners,' but'-'I was practically the Executive and tho position was just tho same," although, the title was ultimately changed to General Manager." In such circumstances it would bo impossible to say that contracts: entered into by Mr. Munro would not be binding on tho Commissioners, or that ho was not acting under tho implied authority of. the.rJixecutive Government. Tho question then remains whether the oxecution of/a formal instrument was' neccs-

sary in- order that thoro should bo a bindinc bargain'.' Aft'er'thW Exhibition opened claimant "carried on-^his 'business without objection, and- paid 'tho rent stipulated for in the tendor. So-far no''demand had been made oil Him to "exccutd'a'formal contract. Tho stipulation that there was to bo a formal agree-

ment was not a condition precedent to tlio parties becoming bound. What- such an agreement should contain might bo a matter oi disputo between the parties as to whother it carried out tho original contract. Thus tlio claimant sought to have inserted a term giving him an oxclusivo right to sell, on tho ground that it was an implied term of his bargain. Ho thought, therefore, that there was an existing contract, under which the claimant was in tho position of a licensee in respect of tho space allotted to him and the contract determined the conditions of the licenso, which was for tho term of tho Exhibition. THe jury had found that Mr. Munro had revoked tho license to occupy tho space, and also the licenso given under tho contract to occupy sale stands. If tho question were open for tho Court to decide, ho should conclude, from tho evidence that tho circumstances did not justify' Mr. Munro in putting an end to the contract and revoking the license. The only 'question which could now bo raised as to tho quantum of damages was that the Crown was not'liable for what tlio jury had found to bo seizure, detention, and conversion of the claimant's goods by Mr. Munro. Tho damages in question were, however, founded upon and arose out of a breach of tho apd claimant was entitled to recover. Ho was of opinion that claimant had established his right to recover , the amounts assessed as damages by the jury. Justices Denniston, Edwards, Cooper, and Chapman concurred. _ Judgment was ordered to bo entered for claimant in the Court below for £1500,'~with costs according to scale, and with costs in tho Court of Appeal on the highest scale, as from a distance. Consideration of other questions with'referenco to costs was deferred. Leave to appeal to tho Privy Council was granted on tho usual terms. At the hearing, Mr. Skorrett, Iv.C. (with him Mr. T. G. Russell, of Christchurch, and Mr. P. Levi), appeared for tlio claimant, and Mr! G. Harper, of Christchurch (with hun Mr! J." A. Cassidy, of Christchurch), for tho King. ■