A STRANGE CASE

Feilding Star, Volume VII, Issue 1906, 24 October 1912, Page 2

A STRANGE CASE

MOSTLY ABOUT BETTING. At the Palmerston Magistrate's Court, on Monday, Percy Coyie, of Palmerston, sued William Young, of Feildiug, jockey, for £55 15a 7d, fdr money advanced to defendant, part as a loan and part for betting purposes; money paid to a racing club for nomination fees; and for goods sold and delivered. Defendant counter-claimed for £80 cash, represented to have been lent by defendant to plaintlll. Mr Cooper appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Onglcy, of Feildiug, for the defendant. The amount of goods supplied was admitted by the defence. The claims for sums of £10, £10, and £15, amounts invested on horses, named respectively Coolstreani, Merrie Zealand, and Avaunt, being under the Gaming Act and therefore not recoverable, were struck out. flTie plaintiff in evidence deposed to lending defendant £3 in cash on March 30, 1910, also £3 on June 7, 1 1910, also £ 3on August 23, 1911, also £2 paid to the Martinborough Jockey Club for entry fees on a.niare named Lady Doris, alleged to bo owned by defendant. All acounts in connection with racing matters were kept separate from trade accounts. He had many transactions with defendant, betting for him. Defentlan't had promised to pay plaintiff. By Mr Ongley : Defendant was in business at one trme in Feilding. Had not much money of his own, but a bank had advanced £400, which subsequently had been paid by defendant's mother. Defendant had been in financial difficulties at the latter period of his business in Feildiug. Had not disclosed defendant's indebtedness to the Commercial Agency when iho assignment was made to them. He had no record of lending £3 at Palinerstoii on August 2£, but was depending on his memory for same. Had paid £30 for Attwood's horses to go to Mastcrton race meeting on October 28 and 29, 1910, and £50 was invested for defendant. Defendant gave plaintiff a cheque for £60 at the end of October. This was to invest on the first day of the Masterton meeting. Tho cheque for £80 Ayas sent from Christchureh by defendant. Could not remember any further payments. Plaintiff admitted having a further £40, which was repaid a few days later by paying same to defendant's account. Plain-

tiff had told defendant he was "hard up," but still had paid back the £40. This concluded plaintiff's case. William Young stated in evidence that plaintiff had written to him at Christchurch for £80 and he had sent him a cheque. He did not owe plaintiff any money at this time, having settled his racing transactions with plaintiff. The £60 paid plaintiff was partly for investment at Masterton, tho balance being duo to Coyle. One horse had run second, but plaintiff had not paid defendant. This had also occurred at Foxton, and since then defendant had not been on speaking terms with plaintiff. Did not tell plaintiff he was "hard up." Did not instruct plaintiff to give Atfcwood money to take horses to Hawera, but had referred Attwood to plaintiff, as plaintiff owed him money. As defendant could not read or write he had asked plaintiff to obtain a £2 money order for nominating Attwood's horse Lady Doris, ■and had paid plaintiff this amount. He denied receiving money from pkiintiff. By Mr Cooper: The betting done at the Masterton meeting was between Attwood and defendant. Could not swear he did not authorise plaintiff to put £25 each on Hawick, Aotea, Tβ Ru, and The Rover. Remembered Te Ru, which came second and paid 9s 6d. He came home after the meeting. Plaintiff was a few shillings in. defendant's debt over the Te Ihi" win. Had not applied for repayment of the £80 sent from Christchurch, as he knew plaintiff could not pay. Plaintiff was not authorised to have any bets with bookmakers oil defendant's account. This concluded defendant's case. Mr Cooper then recalled plaintiff, who stated that defendant had left £.60 to invest on horses The Rover £2-5 and Hawick £25—on the first day, and neither of these won. To Mr Thomson: These instructions were given before defendant left Feilding. Definite instructions were given to back The Rover, and defendant would wire whether to back Te Ru or Hawick. To Mr Cooper: A wire came to back Te llu, which plaintiff interpreted from his instructions as meaning Hawick. On the second day instructions came to back Aotea and Te Ru for £2 Seach. To Mr Thomson : Although jthe cheque was for £60, plaintiff only got £50, subsequently drawing a cheque for £40, giving Attwood £30 and defendant £10. To Mr Cooper: At the end of the meeting defendant owed plaintiff approximately £50. By Mr Ongley: Plaintiff admitted writing to defendant for £50 stating b.e would get £30 from Attwood, who had won a race with Reumac. Defendant further said he must have been wrong in thinking he stated in tho letter that Attwood had had a win, as defendant's cheque had been dated November 3, and Reumac had not won till the sth, and plaintiff had written about the Ist or 2nd, although he (plaintiff) had felt rather sure he had. To Mr Thomson: Plaintiff admitted getting a cheque for £80 from defendant. At first he thought £30 was from Attwood, rvut he found afterwards that the whole £80 came from, defendant, so that at the time lie owed defendant £80, but Attwood owed him £30, and at defendant's Request he credited Attfcwood with £30. Judgment was given on the claim for £9 15s 7d (the shop account admitted), with costs £1 16s. On the counter-claim the defendant was nonsuited, costs being allowed only on tho claim.