BAD SPECULATION

Greymouth Evening Star, 25 February 1928, Page 10

BAD SPECULATION

FOOTBALL COMPETITION SEQUEL

Mr Justice Salter gave judgement foi’ the plaintiff in an action in which Mr Francis Augustus Bass, claimed £lOO from the defendant, Mr D. M. Davies, as drawer of a cheque for that amount payable to the plaintiff. The cheque, which was dated October 9, 1927, was dishonoured on presentation. Mr Cartwright Sharp appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Gilbert Beyfus for the defendant (says “The Times”). The action arose in connection with a football competition inaugurated by the “Sunday Graphic.” The plaintiff is the head billiard marker of the Engineers’ Club, Coventry Street, and the defendant is a member of the club. The competition for which the plaintiff entered -was advertised in the “Sunday Graphic” of September 11, 1927, as Competition No. 4. It stipulated that a sum of £2,000-must be won for the correct -forecasting of only 12 football matches. The defendant filled in the necessary, coupon in the newspaper, and on the following Saturday, September 17, found, to his delight, that he had guessed the result of every match correctly. On Sunday, September IS, the “Sunday Graphic” published the results of competitions Nos 2 and 3, and in those cases the was divided between five and four competitors respectively. On September 23, when the defendant was at the club, he called the attention of a friend, Mr Ward, to the fact that the plaintiff had guessed the 12 matches in the fourth competition correctly, and Mr Ward asked the plaintiff if he would sell his chance for £2OO. The defendant, however, approached the plaintiff on September 26, and suggested that, instead of parting vzith his chance entirely, he should take £llO for whatever his prize might be, and an additional £lOO for every complete £5OO of ■which the prize might consist. The plaintiff agreed. Acting on the agreement the defendant paid to the plaintiff £5 in cash on account, and, on 30, a further £5. At- that last meeting both parties signed a document containing the terms of their agreement, and the defendant gave the plaintiff the cheque' for £lOO which was the subject of the action. It was agreed that the cheoue should be post-dated October 9, 1927. NEARLY 600 WINNERS. A notice had appeared m the “Sunday Graphic” of September 25 stating that the number of successful competitors was so large that they were unable to print their names and addresses. [The result of the competition was published on that date at the foot of a column relating to horseracing.] The result of the competition was not published on October 2, the date advertised, and the plaintiff wrote to the “Sunday Graphic for a list of the successful competitors. This he received on October 12. It showed that nearly 600 people had sent in correct forecasts • for Competition No. 4. Each of them received £3 7/9. The plaintiff presented the cheque for £lOO which he had received from the defendant, and it. was dishonoured. . .

The defendant .alleged that the plaintiff’s representation that he did not know whether there were any, and, if so, how many, other successful competitors was false and fraudulent in that, on or after September 25, 1927, he knew that a large number of competitors had given 12 correct results. It was further alleged that the defendant was induced to give the cheque by the false and fraudulent representation made orally by the plaintiff to the defendant on or shortly after October 3, 1927, to the effect that he did not know why the results of the competition had not been published. . . The plaintiff, in evidence, said that he forwarded to the defendant the £o 7/9 which was his share of the prize, but the defendant returned it. Cross-examined by Mr Beyfus, he said that he did not expect the result of Competition No. 4 to be published until October 2, 1927, and so did not expect or look for an announcement of the result before that date. The defendant, giving evidence, said that he would not have entered into the bargain if he had thought that the plaintiff had seen the announcement about the inability to publish the names of successful competitors in the “Sunday Graphic.” Mr G. A. Wyatt, competition editor of the “Sunday Graphic,” said that results of the competitions were usually announced a fortnight after entry. It often happened, however, that results were published a week after to put the competitor out of his misery, he added. Mr Beyfus said that the only real point was whether he had proved by inference that the knowledge of the paragraph in the issue of September 25 had come to the plaintiff. Mr Justice Salter, in giving judgment, stated the facts, and said that he had to determine to his satisfaction whether or not the plaintiff had taken the cheque by fraud. On September 23, when the plaintiff was offered £2OO for his chance, it was not suggested that he knew how many others had been successful. The result of the competition was, in fact, published on September 25, a week before it was expected. It was inserted in a. page devoted to sporting matters, .at the foot o.f .a column relating to horse-racing, but that was not an unusual place. The question Y as whether the plaintiff saw that notice. If he knew that a large number of people were going to share the prize it was quite obvious that he was guilty of gross fraud. He (his Lordship) did not attach much importance to the fact that the result was not put in the football column. On the facts of the case he was of the opinion that there was nothing to induce the plaintiff to search the newspaper on September 25. His success was no doubt well known at the club, and would be on 'the look-out -for the result, and to his (his Lordship’s) mind it was quite clear that the notice of the result was not .seen by other members of the club. Further, when the result' was not in the “Sunday Graphic” of October 2, 1927, as advertised, the plaintiff showed very considerable anxiety and called upon his newsagent as early as 7 a.m. on the following day. On the advice of the newsagent he wrote for a list of successful competitors, which he received on October 12. In his (his Lordship’s) opinion the charge of fraud had not been made out to his satisfaction, apd there must be judgment for the plaintiff, with costs. Judgment for £lO.O 18/8 was accordingly entered.