Irish Sweep Prize

Horowhenua Chronicle, 26 June 1931, Page 8

Irish Sweep Prize

TWO MEN CLAIM SHAKE

AN ALLEGED AGREEMENT

ITALIANS IN DUBLIN COURT

The Italian cafe proprietor, Emilio Scaia, of Battersea, London, who drew the winner Grakle in the Irish Grand National Sweepstake, defended his claim to the whole of the first prize money, £354,500, in the Dublin High Court last month.

On the eve of the day on which the prize money was due co be paid, two of his fellow-countrymen, Antonio Epicella and Matteo Constantino, claimed that they were entitled to a share. They went to Dublin and obtained an interim injunction to prevent the sweepstake trustees from paying the prize money to Mr. Scala.

Subsequently Mr. Justice Meredith had before him a further application asking him to grant an interlocutory injunction, which “ would involve the withholding of the prize money until an action by Epicella and Constantino against Scala had been decided. Mr. Gavan Duffy, K.C., said his clients claimed under a written agreement to be partners with Mr. Scala in the prize money. “Wo can only think that the shock of victory has affected the gentleman’s perspective because he has thrown doubt on the agreement upon which we build,’ 7 added counsel.

Mr. -Justice Meredith pointed out that the agreement set-down two sets of tickets and there was added, apparently, independently, the number of the winning ticket. “That could have been added as an afterthought,” observed the judge. Mr. Gavan Duffy: But your Lordship has an affidavit that the number with the winning ticket was there when the original agreement was executed. It just happened that the one added was the winning ticket, and it turned out to be complimentary ticket —that is, it was one of the extra tickets thrown in with the two books. The judge: If it was intended to include the winning ticket in the original agreement, why was it not put down in its proper orderV it appears to me to have been an, afterthought. “Something lor Nothing." Mr. Gavan Duffy replied that two books were the subject of this agreement. There was another book in which they had an interest in common, but Scaia was entitled to dispose of some of those tickets to his friends. The winning ticket was one left over. Plaintiffs declared that Scala pulled the ticket out of his waist-coat pocket and said ; ‘ ‘ Here it is. But the number with the others in the agreement.”

The judge: Then it was an after thought ? Mr. Duffy: It was in that sense.

The judge: Was this for any special consideration or merely a piece of generosity on the part of Mr. Scala? Mr, Gavan Duffy: No, when the agreement came to be put down in writing we had all the tickets covered, including this extra ticket.

The judge: How 1 much did you in fact pay? Air. Gavan Duffy; We paid our third share for two books of tickets. Groups of Tickets

Air. Wood said the agreement referred to two groups of tickets purchased on January 30. The judge: That is my point. If they were entitled to share in this one outstanding ticket why were they not entitled to the whole of the outstanding group? Counsel read affidavits by witnesses who declared that Scala had admitted that plaintiffs were equally interested with him in the winning ticket. The judge: Mr .Scala had anotner book, and, according to you, he agreed that the complimentary ticket should be included in the agreement. It seems to mo that this ticket comes in on a totally different basis.

Air. Albert Wood, K.C., replying for Scala, said: “I wish to say, here and now, that Scala regards the insertion of the number of the ticket ’on the agreement and also other matters connected with the agreement—a matter which your Lordship will have to investigate—as a criminal act on the part of two persons. • Money Waiting on Deposit The judge said that he thought that would occur to anyone who looked at the document. “I had not had it in my hand two minutes,” he added, “ before I made that point, but it is a point which has to be investigated; whether that possibility materialises as a fact is another question.” Mr. Cecil Lavery, K.C., for the committee of the governing bodies of the hospitals, said the money was on. d©7 pdsiit and available for the person entitled'to it, aa the Court might determine. Notice had .been given by‘Mr. Arthur Bendir that he claimed threequarters of the prize money on an' assignment from Mr. Scala. He asked the parties to consider how far they would be agreeable to limit the action to a quarter share of the money, Application was made by another barrister that Mr. Bendir’s nameL should b£ added as a party to the claim, .

, There was a consultation between; counsel on all sides, and it was understood that this course was agreed to. The judge decided that the prize mqney should remain invested until the hearing of the action or a further order.

A cablegram’ published on April 29 said the Court had granted the appli*

cation by Mr. Arthur Bendir to be paid £266, 043 out of the prize money; SeaJa, Epicella and Constantino agreed to this. It was understood that Mr. Arthur Bendir represented the firm of commission agents who had given notice of a claim to three-quarters of the prize money on an assignment from Scala.