BRIDGE AND BACCARAT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 203, 27 August 1910, Page 17

BRIDGE AND BACCARAT.

___. ALL__GHT SITTING. JUDGMENT FOR £1,100 TO ONE O. THE PLAYERS. Mr Louis Morisot, otherwise known as Lew Morris, a commission agent, sued Mr John Lang, London, a rubber merchant, to recover £1,100, alleged to be under an agreement. The alleged debt had relation to card playing. The -defendant denied that the money was due, and pleaded the Gaming Act. Counsel for plaintiff, stating the case, ' said the Gaming Act did not apply, because ; the defendant had agreed to pay the money in consideration of the plaintiff not report- : ing him to the committee of the Victoria ' Club, of which both were members, and ; having him declared a defaulter. The plaintiff was a well known commission agent, and the defendant had dabbled with great success in the rubber market. Early in 1307 they met at the club, and with other members played at bridge until 2 a__., when by the rules they could not play longer. The party then went to the defendant's flat in the Maryleboue-road, where the bridge playing was continued. The defendant lost to the plaintiff and others, and asked the plaintiff to settle np for him, which the plaintiff did. At the end of the bridge game the party wished to break up, but the defendant Insisted on further playing. -So play went on with baccarat. The defendant again asked the plaintiff to pay the other members of the party, with the consequence that at 6 a.m. £1,100 was due to the plaintiff from the defendant, which partly represented his winnings at bridge and ■baccarat, and also money paid by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant. The plaintiff expected, counsel said, that the defendant would settle up, in accordance with custom, en the following Monday, ibut the defendant wanted the debt to stand over, as the amount was a "bit heavy." In March, 1901, the plaintiff told the defendant he would have him declared a defaulter. The defendant promised to pay before the Cesarewitch, but he made excuses continually. VISITS TO MONTE CARLO. Mr Morisot, giving evidence, said he called at the defendant's office in Fen-church-street and at his flat with reference to the debt. Cross-examined by Mr Thomas, the witness said he did not go to Monte Carlo in 1007. Did you want to go?—I might have. I think ISO 7 was the only year I missed for about ton years. A bit "stony"? (Laughter.)— Racing men are "stony" sometimes. Is that the reason you did not go?,—l don't know. I might have had some other reason. Is Monte Carlo a health resort?— Yes, and a very nice place indeed. You go there for your health?— Yes. Do they shoot pigeons there?— Yes. Any betting on it?— Yes. Any bookmaking?—You cannot make a book on pigeon shooting. What did yon want to go in ISO 7 for? — For a little holiday. Did you ask Lang to lend yon £50 or £100 to take you there?— No. I asked him to give mc what he owed mc. I should -not ask him for a loon .when he owed mc money. You know he denies lie owes yon a penny?— Does he? You know he is a rubber manufacturer who makes stoppers for bottles? —I know he is in the rubber business. Have you a «crap of paper with regard to this debt of £1100?— No.. Why don't you make it £15,000? —I am not in the habit of doing that sort of thing. Did the defendant pay cash for everything he lost at the club?—He might have paid some other members. Did you suggest, seeing the state he was in, that you should go to his flat and play cords? —No. Was he in a state of intoxication?— No. We had had drinks. What you call "sprung"?— No. The defendant did not say at the flat: "I have done and cannot play any more." It was defendant's suggestion that they should go on playing. Did you want to sit down and play double dummy?— No. Was it cutting for sovereigns at bridge? —No. Singlehanded bridge. Did you produce a pack of cards from your pocket?—No; Mr Lang took the cards from the elnb. Why didn't yon get an LO.U.?—We never do it. TWO 100 TO 1 CHANCES. A month or so ago two of defendant's horses won on a 100 to 1 chance?— Yes. Did that stimulate you to bring this action?— Not exactly. I heard he was doing well in the rubber boom. You know the defendant has resigned from the club for over a year?—l have not seen him there lately. Did he complain to the committee of your threatening him in the club?— Not thAt I know of. Re-examined: There was no foundation for the suggestion that the defendant was intoxicated. Do you carry mnch money on yon?—l (sometimes have several thousands of pounds on mc on the racecourse and when I am settling. Mr Ed. Simpson, a member of the Victoria Club, examined by Mr Cannpt, said he knew the plaintiff and the defendant well, and on the night in question was one of those who played bridge at the club and at the flat. When the witness was going he was paid some £60 or £S0 which he had won. The plaintiff and Mr Lang were having eide bets of £20 or £30 on each rubber at bridge; that was how the gambling started. The witness only played for shilling points and did not bet. Mr Lang suggested a game of baccarat or chemin de fer, and at the end the plaintiff said he had won from Mr Lang £1000 or £1100. Mr Lang said he would pay the plaintiff as soon as he could. Cross-examined by Mr Thomas: Both the plaintiff and the defendant were pretty reckless gamblers. He drew a chair np to the lire and smoked a cigar while the plaintiff and the defendant were betting in hundreds, and it did not take long to lose a thousand at that. He could not say that Mr Lang was a little the worst for drink. Mr Cohen and other witnesses gave evidence for the plaintiff. Mr Justice Ridley: Is it denied that the defendant lost the money? Mr Thomas: I say he was so drunk that he did not know what he was doing. Mr Justice Ridley: I come to the conclusion from his evidence that he was sober. I consider the debt proved. In giving judgment Mr Justice Ridley said: While it is clear that a gambling debt cannot be recovered, it is also clear that if there is other consideration it may be recovered. There must be judgment for the plaintiff with costs. : ___