TOTALISATOR PERMITS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVI, Issue 14, 17 January 1895, Page 5

TOTALISATOR PERMITS.

A WARNING TO LOCAL RACING

CLUBS,

MR NORTfICROFT'S FUTURE IN TENTIONS.

At the Magistrate's Court to-day, Mr H. W. Northcrofb gave judgment in a claim broughb by J. R. Cross against George Mcßride. This was a claim to recover £3 2s Gd for work done by plaintiff for the Onslow Trotting Club, of.which club defendant was, at tho time of the work being done, a member.

Evidence was beard on a previous Court day. _Mr Northcroft new gave judgment. He said :-rThe Secretary of the Ouslow Trotting Club ordered certain posters and race cards to be printed by the plaintiff. On these posters and race cards among other names appears that of the defendant as one of the comtnitces, and he admits that be was treasurer or trustee of the Club's funds, and signed all cheques inpayment of accounts. He knew this debt had been contracted, and promised to pay i 6 when the Club was in funds, but could not do so at the time the account was presented, because some of the members of the Club had not paid their subscription, and ! though, this promise was made some months ago, the dsbt is still unpaid. The defendant denies being a member of the Committee^although his, name is on the posters ana* race cards, ■ lie attended the races, attended'the Committee meetings, took part in, and voted at. thorn, had chat ye of the. books, which ho handed over to the lately-appointed Secretary, and had possession of them on the day this case was hoard. , He had paid plaintiff cheques for similar work done oh former occasions, and when this account was presented informed plaintiff he had ''paid several other accounts, out of his own private pocket." The plaintiff says, " I would not have done . the work had Mr Mcßride!s namo not been1 on tho copy given me to prinbfrom. I thoughb ho would see me 'paid, .as he had paid me before. I looked to him for the money. When i saw him about the account ho expressed regret thab it* should be owing." from tho evidence I am of opinion the defendanb was a member of the Committee, and held himself out to the public as such, or allowed the Secretary to do 80, and it is not competent now for him to soy he was not, for if a man holds himself out to the public, lends his name, and so acts as to induce others to believe he is one of the Committee, and has received credit for that reason, he carinob afterwards deny his liability. The first question I have to decide is who is liable bo the plaintiff, "for there is no question as to the work having been done and by order of defendanb Club's secretary. Somebody must be responsible to tradesmen and workmen who furnish them goods and labour ab the order of the Secretary of the Club. It appears to me tho Committee hold themselves out as the parties to be charged by controlling the financial affairs of the Club and regulating the expenditure. The n6xb question is whether tho defendant is liable in his private capacity, or did the plaintiff give credit to the fund ? I think from the facts the defendant is personally liable. It would be hard that the plaintiff, who has done the work ah a reasonable price, should have no remedy. If he has not, then defendant's committee, by appointing a Secretary to act for them, might deprive every tradesman and labourer who supplied or worked for them of any remedy except against tho fund, whick would be absurd. The defendanb and- the Committee know the extesb of their fund or credit, which the plaintiff could not possibly know. If.the Committee make contract? when they have not sufficient money to their credit to meet the expenditure, they raako themselves liable. In this case the defendant appears) to have had sole control of the funds. Judgment was thereforo given for plaintiff for £3 2s 6d with costs £2 Is.

After Mr Northcrofb had delivered judgment bo said that before racing clubs cob a recommendation from him in future for a totalizator permit they would havo to show that they had gob money in the bank both to pay tradesmen's debts and the stakes.