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 ,
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS19010228.2.59
Bibliographic details
Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 50, 28 February 1901, Page 5
Word Count
460S.M. COURT.-THIS DAY. Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 50, 28 February 1901, Page 5
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Auckland Libraries.