GAMBLING DEBTS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 200, 22 August 1905, Page 3

GAMBLING DEBTS.

PAYMENT OF CHEQUE STOPPED. A WELLINGTON CASE. (By Telegraph.—Press -Association.) WELLINGTON. Monday. A betting transaction in connection with the last race meeting at Feildimr formed the subject of a case heard before the Chief Justice to-day. The plaintiff was a young man .named •John Jones, and defendant a turf commission agent, named Frederick Hilton. Plaintiff claimed £42 5/3. being the amount of a cheque drawn by defendant in favour of one John McWilliams, for which payment, was stopped. The defence was that the cheque was given in settlement of a gambling debt, which was an illegal transaction within the meaning of the Gaming and Lotteries Act. Hilton said That a cheque for £-42 5/8 was given by him for gambling debts on the first day's racing at Feilding at "totalisator odds" or three or four bets. He had an office in Wellington, but the bets were made by telegraph. One telegraphic order was "put ten on Admiral Gerveras.' s and another, "flu ten on Miss King." He made wagers with a man named McWiliiams. and had stopped payment'of the cheque, because MuWilliams, had played a trick on him with regard to a "no reply telegram." -John Charles Jones, the plaintiff, said he got the cheque from McWi'illams in payment of wages. Payment of the cheque had not been stopped when he got it. about May 15. His Honor said then* was no doubt that what Hilton un<i MeWilliams had done in regard to this cheque was A crime. As six months had not elapsed since th<» date of the c-heque. he hoped the police would prosecute both of them. It was clear to him that MrWilliains thought lie could not cash the cheque himself, and so he passed it to Jones, his employe* , . Jones would have his remedy against his employer. Iα His Honor's opinion, it was a great pity the Legislature had not stepped in. and prevented any suit being brought on cheques given for "ambling debts. All suvh classes of eases should not come before the Court at all. The question then was, whether the plaintiff took the negligently. not knowing that it wad tainted with fraud. It would Take a lot to convince him that this was not a "put up" thing between MeWillia.m.s and Jones. Decision was reserved.