A TOTALISATOR CASE.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3657, 4 April 1883, Page 4

A TOTALISATOR CASE.

At the luvercargill Resident Magistrate s Court on Thursday T. J. Lumsden sought to recover from I. Abraham £02 12s, under circumstances detailed as follows by the Southland Times:— Plaintiff wired to the defendant on the morning of the Dunedin Cup race, asking him to back five horses, among which was Adamant, for the Cup on his behalf ou tho totalisator. He received a message stating that his wishes would be ■ ••ivon "effect to £i if there were £1 sweeps." In the afternoon came the news that Adamant had unexpectedly won, and anticipating a good dividenel plaintiff wired asking what it was. He received a reply stating that it was £02 odd, but that defendant had not backed the horses on his behalf, us he did not consider it would be worth his while. Offers to arrange the matter having failed, plaintiff now sought to recover the amount of the dividend he would have re-oived had his instructions been obeyed.—Air F. R. Chapman, who appeared for the defendant, stated his defence to be: That if the Court was of opinion that a contract existed, it was an illegal one, being a betting transaction; and besides, defendant had no money in hishantls belonging to plaintift'.--Mr Finn (for the plaintiff) maintained that it was not a betting transaction, but simply an accepted commission, the failure to excute which lost his client £02 odd.- -The defendant, called by Air Finn, deposed that he did_ not act as agent for the making of bets, neither was ho a betting man ; in fact he- had only ptit £2 on a totalisator on one occasion. Had no money belonging to plaintiff in his hands to make the investment for him. Tho reason why ho did not invest fo'- plaintiff after promising was that, when he reached the course, he found that two of the five horses named by plaintiff were scratched. In these circumstances he thought it was probable that, if he backed the remaining throe, plaintiff might repudiate the entire transaction. Aleeting plaintiff's brother on the course-, he explained to him the position of matters, and was advised by him to talvc no notice of plaintiffs instructions: Had the five horses remained iv ho would have put the moiic-y on the totalisator as requested.—At this stage Air Finn said ho would abandon further" proceedings, being satisfied with the explanation given.- -Air Chapman said that it might be a very fortunate thing for plaintiff that his counsel had abandoned his case, as ho (Air Chapman) holel letters which had been pushed under tho door of defendant's place of business in Dunedin which would have shown that this was an attempt to extort blackmail from his client on the assumption that he would rather pay tho claim than come down to defend the action. A nonsuit was then recorded by the Court, Air Chapman asked for his client's expenses, and some argument followed. His AVorship declining to grant personal expenses, but allowiug counsel's fee, £3 3s.