. ▁Ran j its in h ji ▁denied ▁many ▁of ▁the ▁claims ▁but ▁agreed ▁to ▁rep ay ▁the ▁initial ▁loan ▁to ▁prevent ▁embar rass ment ▁if ▁the ▁story ▁got ▁out . ▁He ▁offered ▁to ▁rep ay ▁half ▁of ▁the ▁sum , ▁but ▁in ▁the ▁event ▁gave ▁back ▁less ▁than ▁a ▁quarter . ▁Another ▁dispute ▁arose ▁with ▁Mary ▁T ay ler , ▁an ▁artist ▁who ▁was ▁commission ed ▁in ▁April ▁ 1 9 0 8 ▁to ▁create ▁a ▁mini ature ▁portrait ▁of ▁Ran j its in h ji ▁at ▁an ▁agreed ▁cost ▁of ▁ 1 0 0 ▁gu ine as ▁for ▁one ▁and ▁ 1 8 0 ▁gu ine as ▁for ▁a ▁pair . ▁Ran j its in h ji ▁became ▁increasing ly ▁un co oper ative ▁and ▁when ▁the ▁finished ▁work ▁arrived ▁two ▁weeks ▁afterwards , ▁he ▁eventually ▁returned ▁them , ▁stating ▁that ▁he ▁was ▁diss atisf ied ▁with ▁the ▁li ken ess . ▁In ▁response , ▁T ay ler ▁issued ▁a ▁writ ▁for ▁ 1 8 0 ▁gu ine as . ▁When ▁the ▁case ▁came ▁up ▁at ▁Bright on ▁county ▁court , ▁Ran j its in h ji ' s ▁solic itor , ▁Edward ▁H unt , ▁claimed ▁that ▁as ▁a ▁r uling ▁so ver eign , ▁English ▁courts ▁had ▁no ▁authority ▁over ▁him . ▁However ▁the ▁Secretary ▁of ▁State ▁for ▁India , ▁Lord ▁Mor ley , ▁became ▁involved ▁and ▁H unt ▁offered ▁to ▁make ▁a ▁settlement . ▁By ▁August , ▁after ▁a ▁delay ▁of ▁seven ▁weeks , ▁T ay ler ▁was