OUTSIDE THE LAW

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 10, 13 January 1932, Page 9

OUTSIDE THE LAW

SWEEPSTAKE TICKET

JUDGMENT FOR SCALA

NATURE OF CONTRACT

(From "The Post's" Representative.) LONDON, 7th December. Mr. Justice Meredith has delivered an important judgment in regard to sweepstakes and co-partnership in tickets. The suit was that brought1 by two Kalian hairdressers, Antonio Apicclla and Mateo Constantino, against Emilio Scala, cafe proprietor, of Battersa Park, London, who drew the winning ticket in the Dublin sweepstake for ' the Qtand National last spring, and against the trustees and committee of the Irish Hospitals Trust, Ltd. The plaintiffs claimed to be .co-owners ■with Scala of the, ticket which drew Grakle. Three-quarters of the ticket were sold'before the race, and of tho remaining quarter-sharo (£88,000) 'of the prizo money the plaintiffs claimed two-thirds (about £60,000). ,In his previous part judgment, a month ago, Mr. Justice Meredith said he thought tho number of the winning ticket (F.M.H. 22370) was inserted in the written agreement between the parties some time after the result of the draw was known, but that there ■was verbal agreement to include an ex- . tra ticket. The main defence was that the winning ticket was bought by Scala outside the pool. TICKET A "PROPOSAL POEM." ■ Mr. Justice Meredith said that tho hospitals sweep tickets which Hospitals Trust, Ltd., ■ scattered broadcast over the world were not to be regarded, in his opinion, as offers to each person into whose, hands they might' find their .•■ way to become a purchaser of the right to have tho corresponding counterfoil included in the' draw on forwarding the counterfoil and the price of the ticket, "The ticket is not dv offer which has:just to: be : accepted. It, with the attached counterfoil, is more like a proposal form, and an offer isi first made by forwarding the:, counterfoil with price of the ticket, the ticket being retained by the purchaser. If the offer, which is one to subscribe: to the sweepstake, is accepted,, the pi-ice .of/ the ticket is; retained and an official receipt is forwarded. The contract is thus concluded, and it is one made in tho Irish Free State.. "But the offer might bo refused. It 1 might, for instance, ■ be. thought: advisable not1 to accept any counterfoils after . a date some days earlier than had been announced, because the number of tickets sold had'so.exceeded expectations. "Or if the. transmission of the . counterfoils was illegal in a particular country,. and' if the encouragement of breaches of law in thai country were resented, the Management Committee might decide to refuse all counterfoils transmitted from that country.?? ' AN ENGLISH CONTRACT. \,-\ lii'the course of his judgment Mr. Justice Meredith said that the first . point to be determined was whether the contract: in' question was governed by the; law of England, or of that of the Irish Free State. , The contract was made in England, and- all the Acts to be performed wero to bo performed in England.' Unless there i were some strong countervailing reasdfr ho thought the contract should: be regarded as an English contract. ' But :as' there were considerations that could be, urged on the other side, and as it seemed to have been -assumed that the contract was a Free State contract, he would deal with the-question on that basis. ■■■ "■■-.,-■ ■' ''The- bald question then is, 5' tli(e Judge proceeded, "will the Courts of thes Irish Free State enforce contracts which are to. be -performed by breaking the: laws, which other countries have found it expedient to make in the interests of good gpvernment? ■ Every civilised country has a right to work out the problem of.good government" in its..o_wn way, and,' God knows, it is a sufficiently.. difEcult problem. The whole world is to-day groaning." under the weight of that problem. ■■,'■. Are our Courts to respect the efforts of such other '-; countries vt6 ', discharge.', their duties, or.are they to be made the instruments of subverting such efforts?1 GAMBLERS' COCKPIT OF EUROPE. ' *-To" my mind/ only . one answer to that question, is possible. Our Courts will not enforce such contracts except where they : have in any cas_e been expressly validated' by our Legislature." . It was presumably because the plaintiffs knew that the contract could not be enforced in England, because of the illegal acts to be performed under it, that this action, was . brought in the Courts of the Irish Free State. '•It is-obvious that if-aetions of this type could be successfully maintained in this country, Dublin, Would rapidly become the gamblers' cockpit of Europe. k I see nothing in' the Public Charitable Hospitals (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1930, to encourage the idea that such a result was intended. Hence if we desire to be cosmopolitan, let us be so by paying a cosmopolitan regard to the • principles of international laws.",. ; ;... ■■„■. ~. ■;.- .;, . :■,.-,,.; The Judgo would deelir.o to make any declaration, .as to the bare ownership of the ticket, as .a mere1 chattel, on the ground that S declaration had- only been sought fop the purpose .of enforcing a . contract that had in view the performance in. England of acts in violation of section. 41 of the Lotteries Act, 1823. His decision on the. sorious issues of fact in dispute, and as to the rrierits of the. case, while it explained the grievance: which the plaintiffs felt as to :Mr. Scala's unauthorised use of the book of tickets belonging to "the three parties, gave- Mr. Seala the satisfaction of a finding that the plaintiffs had no claim whatever at law or.in equity to participate in his winnings.; ~ QUESTION OF COSTS."'-.. Dismissing the action, the Judge said plaintiffs must pay the costs of tho Hospitals Committee and the trustees as well as their own. Scala must pay his own costs, with the exception of the whole costs of the shorthand notos (estimated at £500) and the evidence of Captain Quirk, the handwriting expert. Mr. Wood, K.C. (for Scala): "I think it is something of an injustice to Scala that, having had to defend an action, in which, there is forgery, supported by perjuryl " ' > The Judge: "Well,- if you call it perjury, I have held he perjured himself up to the hilt." j Mr. Duffy, K.O. for plaintiffs- asked the Judge to continue the injunction restraining the trustees from paying, out the prizo money. If another Court ">vere to come to a different conclusion it would be a great hardship to the plaintiffs if the money were not there. A CRIMINAL ACT. Mr. Wood objected, and said that ■^ Scala had been put to enormous cost. The Judge: "I -will discharge these orders under the judgment after Tuesday next. If they are- going to appeal that will give them time." Mr. Wood asked the Jiidgo to impound three documents, explaining as the reason for tho request that the Judge had found the plaintiffs guilty of a criminal act. '....' ' Mr. Duffy: "And the defendant, too." ; ' ; The Judge: "I am not a Court of Criminal Jurisdiction." Mr. Wood: "But you have jurisdiction, my Lord." The Judge: "It is a matter rather for the Attorney-General." Mr. Wood: ''Your Lordship should

send the. documents to the AttorneyGeneral;" The Judge refused to impound the documents. The' costs of the case on all sides are estimated at over £20,000. After he drew Grakle in : the sweepstakes Mr. Scala was the most harassed person in London. Apart from tho legal action, which has now been decided in his favour, he had received thousands of begging letters. . Tho success of Grakle made him the potential owner of: .■£345,744. : But he sold three-quarters of his ticket before the draw for £10,500, leaving for himself £88,000, ■■ ■■.-.-. •WARNING TO TICKET HOLDERS. The "Daily Telegraph" draws attention to Mr. Justice Meredith's judgment. . . ... "Those who aro asked to enter a pool in future fdr.'tho purchase- of sweepstake tickets," says this journal, "will do well to remember-"that tho Irish Courts have expressly refused to enforce any right of a co-owner to a share in such tickets. Mr. .-Justice Meredith was perfectly explicit. Will the Courts of the Irish Free State, he asked, recognise contracts which are to be performed by breaking the laws of other countries? And he declared that only one answer was possible. Tho Irish Courts will never enforco such contracts unless by express direction of their own Legislature. English law, of course, which forbids sweepstakes, will not allow any rights to sweepstake prizes. If those. aggrieved could find a remedy by proceedings in Ireland, 'Dublin;' said Mr. Justico Meredith, 'would rapidly become- the gamblers' cockpit of Europe.' These strong words clearly indicate not only his dislike of the_ case before him but disapproval— which ■ndll.be generally shared—of the influenc-3 of th© sweepstakes in Ireland and elsowhere."