£1,000 “DOUBLE” DISPUTE

Greymouth Evening Star, 6 January 1934, Page 2

£1,000 “DOUBLE” DISPUTE

BOOKMAKERS LOSE APPEAL. LONDON, November 16. Lords Justices Slesser and Romer in the Court of Appeal yesterday had before them a dispute between Hunter Gray and Godfrey Ltd., turf accountants, Budgerow, E.C., and Mr. Arthur Savile, Green Cross-gardens, N.W., relating to a “double” which, Mr. Savile said ought to have brought him £lOOO. Mr. Savile telephoned, on Oct. 22, 1932, a bet of £lO to win a “double” on Fleeting Memory and Wardenia. Both horses won, and Mr Savile claimed he was entitled to £lOOO. Messrs. Hunter Gray and Godfrey considered he was only entitled to £2OO, and paid that sum. Their contention was that under their rules all doubles and accumulators over £2, unless there was an interval of at least 30 minutes between the set time of the races, must be for one meeting only.’ Fleeting Memory ran at Newbury at 1.45, and Wardenia at Stockton at 1.45. Therefore, Messrs Hunter Gray and Godfrey said, they were under no obligation to and never did accept Mr. Savile’s bet. Mr. Savile submitted the dispute to Tattersails Committee, who adjudged

that he was entitled to £lOOO. Messi's Hunter Gray and Godfrey still refused to pay him more than the £2OO, and he brought an action. This was tried before Mr. Justice dj Parcq in the King’s Bench Division, and judgment was given for the defendants. Mr. Porter, K.C., for Messrs. Hunter Gray and Godfrey, said that Tattersalis Committee had reported them to the stewards of the Jockey Club, and the company had been warned off Neivmarket Heath. The directors of the company were being threatened with similar actions. An action had been launched by Messrs. Hunter Gray and Godfrey claiming a declaration that their woman clerk had no authority to accept Mr. Savile’s bet, and the company were not bound by her act. They also sought an injunction to restrain Mr.i Savile from representing that they were liable to him for £lOOO, or from enforcing payment. On an application by Mr. Savile, an order had been made by ( a. Master to stay this action. This order had been confirmed by Mr. Justice Roche, and the present appeal was against Mr. Justice Roche’s decision. Lord Justice Slesser, in his judgment, said the matters in this case had been specifically decided by Mr. Justice du Parcq, and this was merely an ingenious attempt to re-open what had been adjudicated upon. The Master was right, and the appeal failed. Lord Justice Romer agreed.