DUNEDIN NOTES.

Press, Volume L, Issue 8593, 21 September 1893, Page 5

DUNEDIN NOTES.

September 20.

Mr Dawson denies that he has any intention of retiring from the contest for Dunedin. There is much speculation about Sir R. Stout's intentions, but I incline to the belief he will be nominated either for Port Chalmers or Christchurch.

A case of some interest to sporting men was heard before Mr Carew, R.M., to-day.. Edward Locke, a station hand at Hakateramea Downs, has been doing business for some time, with Finlinson, a well-known bookmaker. Attracted by the latter's advertisement in a newspaper he had seat- him iJlr on Clanranald. for the Dunedin Cap, and, on July 29th, sent him eaooher £1 for investment on the inside totalisator on Waterbury in the Steeplechase. The defendant replied, " Youre to hand; received cheque for £1 ; shall invest on Waterbury, Grand National Steeple." After the race defendant wrote, " Enclosed you will find cheque for £10 for your investment on Waterbury. • You will notice on my cards that I have got a limit on all events of a £10 dividend. Once I reply your money is guaranteed on, and I charge no commission on winnings," Plaintiff replied, " Please retain fair commission and bend mc another cheque for remainder. I. consider your remark about limit irrelevant in a case in which you undertook to act as agent." Defendant further replied, " Enclosed jr-ou will see my advertisement, which;-I strictly adhere to. It is an understood thing with all bookmakers, bofch in Dunedin and Christchurch that we paijr a £10 limit and no more. Once I confirm your correspondence your money is invested on these terme whether I go to meetings or not." The facts were admitted. Plaintiffs counsel contended that if as a matter of fact the defendant did invest £1, plaintiff was entitled to recover, but if he did not invest he was now estopped from saying he didnot invest. Being directed expressly to invest on the totalisator he must obey his pr*mcipal's instructions or risk the consequences. He admitted that the English case of Cohen v. Kittell, 22 Queen's Bench, was a serious difficulty in the way of plaintiff recovering. It had'there been held by the : Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench that an agent who uudertook to make bets for a principal could not be sued in England for failing to do so, but the case might well be different in New Zealand, where the totalisator was recognised by law. Mr Solomon, for the defendant, relied on the ca&es, Dark v Island Bay Racing Company, and Cohen v Kittel. The defendant said he put not a shilling on Waterbury at the meeting, although he was there. He laid plaintiff totalisator odds up to a limit of £10, as was his business, but he never told him that he put his money in the totalisator for him; and in the usual course sent him a £10 note. * When he wrote the letter of August 10th, he had no intention of investing the money. It was-put into his account as soon as it was received. His Worship eaid he thought the case came within that of Cohen v Kittell, and judgment would therefore be for the defendant.