S.M. COURT.-THIS DAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 50, 28 February 1901, Page 5

S.M. COURT.-THIS DAY.

.(Before Mr H. W. Brabant, S.M.) ; Undefended Cases—Judgment was given for the plaintiff! by default in the following- cases: Martha Carter v. AY. Schultz, claim 11/6; Brown Campbell and Co. v. F. T. Howard, claim £5 11/; E. B. Alexander v Charles Watson Harris, claim £10 10/; ,Gilmore and Co. v. John Staines, claim £22 18/; McLeod Bros. v. Norman DOdds, claim £2 12/6; Thomas Jack v. William AVood, defendant ordered to pay costs and deliver'possession of tenement by Monday next; McLeod Bros. v. D.. .Wright,,claim £2 15/; Alex. Aitken, Ltd., v. Hugh ft. Shortland, claim £3 3/2; John N. Williams v John Iredale, claim £15 16/; City Council v Mrs E. Cottingham, judgment for 19/6; Samuel Marks v. Joseph Chadwick, claim £6 6/S. Francis M. Burtt v. Henry AY.- Smith, claim £1 18/6; Hipkins and -y Coutts v. P. Bloustein, claim £2.17/6; Arthur Ben Roberton v. William Bevans (otherwise Kingston), claim £7 18/9. ' Defended Cases.—Pollock y. Montague: Mr AVilson Smith appeared for plaintiff and Mr Nicholson for defendant. This was a claim for the sum of £5, the amount of money received by the defen-,. dant on December 4th last on account oty a wager transaction between the parties. ,y The defendant made a bet wytfi the .plain-' tiff of £100 to £5 against a certain horse;. which was to run in the Auckland. Cup. ■ ThC defendant told the plaintiff that.he*-.' expected him to deposit the £5 with him:,,, N (the defendant) otherwise the wager; would be off. The plaintiff did deposit the y* £5 with the defendant. Subsequently, the.; . plaintiff wrote to defendant requiring, himp to denosit £100 with a stakeholder. This ;■ defendant did not do, and the plaintiff .- thereupon, before the race had been irmv. gave defendant notice that he had can-.? celled the watrer and demanded the £5 V back. The defendant declining to return: ,y It these proceedings were taken. ■ The,.; defence was that the money having. beenLy. staked as a wager, could not be recovered;^ , because of the provisions of 'section ,2 of . the Gaming Act, 1894. His Worship, .te, giving judgment, so id on consideration h* thought the £5 a sum of money J'staked, • • though left in the hands of the. ayer of-., . the odds, and that that fact would maJp* no difference. This' view was^horougily^, , supported by the remarks of Justice-Hay^, ; fn the case of Strachan.v, Universal^ j 4toek Exchange: Further if the-£s>de-^ W& wlthtae- defendants m<m*ro | "silked" it seemed that the peetton jof-t the Act of 1894 quoted, prohibited the p plaintiff from obtaining a.judgme^lfe the case of Burge v. Ashley and grtOM* cited by Counsel, the judges came to t h^ conclusion tha* money **&2£&X2£& 2JSS oJ the s^tion. -^V*-*?** . ther *f°re he nonsuited withp costs.;..-, X ,