LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1662, 31 January 1913, Page 9

LAW REPORTS.

LOWER COURT.

(Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) CASE OVER TWO ADVANCES. An unusual caso was heard in the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when' Patrick Joseph G'rift'en, licensee of the Pier Hotel, Wellington, sued Charles James King, licensee of tho Terminus Hotel, Napier, for .£IOO as money advanced by tho plaintiff for the defendant. Mr. J. J. M'Grath appeared for the plaintiff, and Slv. T. 11. Wiltord for the defendant. Mr. M'Grath said that on October 28, 1912, Griffon invested for King, at King's request, .t'so on tho racohorso Avauncc, which was running at Trcntham, and .£SO on BobrikoftV Both tho horses had lost, and as King had refused to pay Uriifen t the Court was asked to rule whether or not plaintiff could recover the amount. It might bo said that King ,was protected by the Gaming Act,, but that, could only be so in tho case of money won, lost, or staked. This was simply money paid by Griffen for King, actually paid out, irrespective of whether the horses won or lost. The right'of Griffen to recovef existed unless King could show that tho Tight was taken away by statute. The defendant, C. J.' King, in evidence, said that on October 28, 1912, he sent a codo telegram from Napier. to Griffen, asking Griffen to invest .£SO ,on Avaunoe and .£SO on Bobrikoff. On a good many previous occasions.he had sent similar wires to Griffen respecting other horses, and in all these instances 'ho had paid Griffen when the hdrse9 lost. Bobrikoff and Avannce both lost.

Mr. M'Grath: Dd you 'still owe the money? King: I don't personally owe it, but I am morally responsible for it. What do you mean by that?—' I mean that the money was invested oh another person's behalf,' and I have not received it from 1 him." How much of it?—" All." . Were your previous investments for yourself?-"Partly for myself; mostly for. other people." '■',''/ As far as this transaction was concerned, was it between you and Mr. Griffen? —"Yes. ... In this particular instance there was nothing in my wire to indicate that I was acting for anyone else.'- _ Would it be reasonable for the plaintiff to look to you for payment?—' Yes; I have not denied the liability." Do you denv it now?—"No; I explained to you that' I have'not received it yet from others." ."'",■ ... Suppose they never pay you, how will ariffen get. on?-"I suppose I will have to pay it myself when I have exhausted means of getting it from the others. _ Witness said that one man owed him practically the.whole of tho money. , Mr. M'Grath: Do you mind saying who tho man is?—"lt was' Mr. M'Lnughlin, a resident of Napier." . Do you intend to plead the Gaming Act?—"l have no alternative." Although you are morally liable?— "Yes." . ' Aro you anxious to settle with .Mr. Griffen now?—" Yes." Mr. Wilford: lam determined to go ahead with it now. Mr. M'Grath: Oh, it's all. right, we will go on with it. , Mr. M'Grath: If Mr. Griffen gets judgment against you, Mr. King, arc you in a position to pay him now ? King: I suppose I am. .'■■■> You think you are?—" Yes.", '

Mr. Wilford read aletter from Messrs. M'Grath and, Willis (Griffen's counsel) which was to the effect that tin? writers proposed to lav tho'facts of the matter now under themotice of tho Court before the Licensing Committee at Napier • because their client deemed such conduct as Kind's unworthy of a hotel, licensee and considered it his duty'to inform the Licensing Committee and the Licensed Victuallers' Association. The letter was (according to a statement contained in : it) written in fairness to King so as to appraise him beforehand of what was proposed. ''•':...'.' Mr. M'Grath again : asked King if he intended to "plead tho Gaming Act"; and King replied that he did. Aftcr'a few minutes' retirement with his client (Griffen) Mr. M'Grath ■ said that he would elect to take a. non-suit. Ho remarked that the matter might be taken to tho Supreme Court., Plaintiff was, therefore, on his own election, non-suited. ■ •_ .'..' ■ : PENZii THE RACEHORSE; ' Fred. Crossley, veterinary surgeon, sued A, T. M'Willianis for J57 9s. lid., which ho said was due for attention given to, the racing mare Penza... . :. .:- . Mr, A. '■ Blair appeared for tho plaintiff, and Mr. J.' J. M'Grath for the defendant.

Mr. Blair said that it was not disputed that the services had been rendered, but it was said that tho debt had been paid. His Worship slid that the. case'was one in which he thought that some monoy :had'ben paid and not credited. Ho gave judgment for plaintiff for £'i ss. Gd., without costs. . CLAIM . FOR : COMMISSION. John Henry Hooper, commission agent, Wellington; proceeded against Edward Law, farmer, Shannon, to recover as commission oh the salo of .defendant's farm at Shannon to George Bell. Mr. F. P. Kelly appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.T. C. A. Hislop for the defendant. . ' Julg'ment will bo delivered on February 6.. .'\ •UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment was given for plaintiffs by. default in the following cases:—Commercial Agency ■v. Edwin Houghton, .613, costs £2 lis. Gd.;, H. A. de Latour v. Joseph Hamilton, jun., 95., costs £1 lis. 6d.; Cambridge University Press v. Samuel J. Bining, 55.; costs £1 3s. Gd.; Ernest Brown v. Eangihina Eruera, JlO 2s. 7d., costs £2 Is. fid;; Wairarapa Farmers' Cooperative Society v. Bichard Wedderspoon, £\S 3s. 5d., costs £1 lis. Gd.; Harry Baker v, Mrs. Thomas Davis, .£5 65., coste £1 3s. 6d.; Wyatt ■ and Do Latour v. Riohard Wedderspoon, £7 10s., costs £1 3s. 6d.; same v. W. B. Carrick, £5 155., costs £1 3s. 6d.; John Burn and Co. v. Sydney Arthur Ward, £1 Bs., costs 55.; Harry Baker v. Samuel Lawler, £3 35., costs 10s.; Diraond and Hart v. James Sampson Neave, £3 10s., costs 10s.; British and Continental Piano Co. v. Uma Taipua, J!10, costs £i ISs. 6d.; H. Bcgga v. M. Oathom, 7s. 10d., costs Gs.; Commercial Agenoy, Ltd. v. William M'Beth Miller, J!3 ss. Gd., costs 10s.; Vacuum Oil Co. v. M'Nnmara Bros, XI 145,, costs ! 55.; same v. E. Lane, £1 3s. 10d., costs 55.; Thompson and Findlay v. Charles Burrow, M Is. 9d., costs 55.; David L. Kolley v. Mrs. Agnes Venn, £1 10s., costs 55.; W. and J. Staples and Co. v. W. Bevan, 4s. 3d., costs £1 18s. Gd.

JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Charles and Fred. Bird were ordered to pay .£43 14s. 6d. by February 14 to E. W. Mills and-, Co.; Harry Leonard Jenkins was ordered to pay £3 15s. to Charles Pratt and Co. by February 13; and A. Moloney to 3 pay. W. Young, 16s. by Fobruary 18. POLICE CASES. For Insobriety, Thomas Moloney was fined 10s., and James Wallace was sentenced to ono month's imprisonmont. ' John Wobb, who was deemed by the police to bo an idle and disorderly person, was remanded for a week, as tho defendant wished to consult a lawyer. . ■" ' - j