BETTING SENSATION.

Evening Star, Issue 17319, 6 April 1920, Page 6

BETTING SENSATION.

REMARKABLE EFFECT OF LEGAL 6 DECISION, Consternation has been created amongst bookmakers .and the betting fraternity generally by the decision of the English Courl; of Appeal in the case of Dey v. . Mayo. Mr T. H. Dey, a bookmaker, : brought an action against Mr Sam Mayo! • the well-known comedian, to recover £852, the amount of five cheques paid by him - for racing bets won by Mr Mayo. Al- * though judgment was given against Mr Dey in the. Lower Court, the Court of Appeal has now held that under Section . 4 of the Gaming Act, 1835, he is entitled to the return of the money.. Stripped ox Its legal phraseology, the judgment practically amounts to this: Any person who Sias paid a racing debt by cheque can, at any time within the statutory period, recover the money from the person to whom he paid it by proceeding under Section 2of the Gaming Act. Previously it was beleved that the Act merely provided that a betting debt need not be paid, and •{$ was always assumed that once the money changed hands it was irrecoverable. But the Lords of Appeal have given a far wider interpretation to the Statute, holding that if the money was paid by-cheque or any other instrument, it is legally recoverable. Thus if a bookmaker wins from a client £2OO/ and is paid by cheque, the client can, at any time, demand the return of the money and vice-versa. It is immaterial whether the cheque has been paid into the bookmaker’s own account or negotiated, for the bankers are considered to be “holders” within the meaning of the section, and, therefore, on the presentation of the cheque for payment, the ia ■* entitled to pay the amount and claim its 3 return from the person to whom the cheque was originally given. Thus the whole structure of pur betting system is destroyed, and it becomes a matter of ; honor between layer and backer, not only whether gaming debts are paid, but also even after they are paid, the < winner is to be allowed to enjoy the fruits of his successful speculation. Consequently the only safe plan is to demand ones winnings in the form of hard cash! "When the case of Dey v. Mayo came on in the Court, of Appeal, it was stated -that, before Mr Justice Avory, in the Court below, plaintiff sought to recover £852 0s Bd,_ the amount of five cheques drawn by him in favor of defendant or order _ and crossed “a/c payee, not negotiable.” The cheques, which were given for racing bets won by Mr Mayo from plaintiff, were endorsed by defendant 'in blank, paid into a banking account kept in his wife’s name, and were duly honored. Mr Dey claimed to be entitled to recover the amount under Section 2 of the Gaining Act, 1835, which provides;— In case any person shall . . . make, draw, give, or execute any note, bill, or mortgage or any consideration on account of which the same is (by certain Statutes) declared to be void, and such persons shall actually pay to any endorsee, holder, or assigned of such note, bill, or mortgage, the amount of the money thereby received or any part thereof, such money so paid shall be deemed and taken to have been paid for and on account of the person to wfipm such note, bill, or mortgage was originally given upon such illegal consideration as aforesaid, and shall be deemed and taken to be a debt due and owing from such last-named person to the person who shall so have paid such money and shall accordingly be recoverable by a6tion at law. Mr Justice Avory found that defendantks wife was acting merely as the plaintiff’s agent, and that she was not an indorsee” or “holder” of the cheques within the meaning of the section, and that the action failed. • It was against this decision that Mr Dey appealed.—lt was contended on his behalf that, on the evidence adduced at the trial, the bankers who presented the cheques for payment w.ere either holders in due_ course and so entitled to recover them in their own right, or “ holders ” of the cheques within die meaning of the statute. _ The Court accepted the latter alternative contention, and allowed the appeal.—Lord Justice Eankes, in a considered judgment, after stating the facts, pointed out that the bankers who collected and received payment of the cheques were unquestionably holders of the cheques, if j the same meaning was to be given to the expression " holder ” in section 2 of the statute as at bore in the Bills of Exchange : , Art» 1,882. The obvious of sec- ’ tion 2 of the Gaming Act, 1835, was to provide that the person who drew, gave, ■or executed the note, bill, or mortgage should he in no worse position, and ‘that t]ie person to whom the note, bill, or B mortgage was given should be in no better position, because of the alteration In the law made by section 1. He thought also that _it might he safely said that there was no intention to make any alteration in the rule of law, which provided that , ; a person who paid money to another with ■ full knowledge of the mots could recover ; It book. It eeemed plain from these con- \ siderations that, when the statute spoke ■ r of a payment to an indorsee, holder, or : Assignee, it must- be referring to a payment to some person other than the person to whom the note, bill, or mortgage was originally given. In his Lordship’s opinion it was a reasonable inference from tne, language , used in section 2 of the • statute that If the maker of a bill or note found himself faced with a demand to pay . the mount thereof by some person who appeared to him to be the holder or ' indorsee, and not the person to whom he originally gave the bill or note or his ■ representative, he should be entitled iq pay the same and claim the return of j the amount so paid from the person to V whom the note or cheque was originally : given.—The appeal succeeded. The judg- ■ ment of Mr Justice Avory must be set aside, and _ judgment entered for the amount claimed.—Lord Justice Scruttoa and Lord Justice Atkin agreed.