Supreme Court.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 8073, 25 August 1905, Page 2

Supreme Court.

(Per Press Association),

WELLINGTON, August 24. Judgment was given to-day by the Chief Justice in the case in which John Charles Jones sued Frederick Hilton, a tg^ionmiission agent, for £42, amount <jt cheque drawn in favour of John Me Williams and paid, by the latter to Jones and subsequently dishonoured by the bank on account of payment being stopped by defendant, Hilton. His Honor said he was of opinion from all the circumstances, especially from the relationship between plaintiff and McWilliams, that it was not an honest transfer of cheque from McWilliams to him, and that plaintiff took the cheque knowing it had been dishonoured and knowing there was something wrong with the cheque. It was clear McWilliarns was really suing, Jones lending his name in order to try and recover the money won by McWilliams from the defendant. The relationship between plaintiff and McWilliams showed that plaintiff ought. to have known it was not a bona fide transaction. Judgment would go for the defendant. Defendant, as|well as McWilliams, -had been enin an illegal transaction, but he uid not know if that was sufficient to warrant him in refusing Hilton costs altogether. Were he to do so it might encourage those who have no claim whatever, because of an illegal transaction, in bringing such actions into Court. Defendant would be allowed £12 12s costs, witnesses' expenses and disbursements. The documents in the case were ordered to be impounded.

WELLINGTON, August 21. This case arose out of a betting transaction in connection with the last race meeting at Feilding. The defence was that the cheque was given in settlement of a gambling debt, which was an illegal transaction within the meaning of the Gaming and Lotteries Ac". Hilton said that a cheque for £42 5s -3d was given by him for gambling debts on the first day's racing at Feilding at" totalisator odds "on three or four bets. One telegraphic order was " Put ten on Admiral Cerveras," and another, " Put ten on Miss King." He made wagers with a man named McWilliams, and bad stopped payment of the cheque, because McWilliams had played a trick on him with regard to a " no reply telegram."

John Charles Jones, the plaintiff, said he got the cheque from McWilliams in payment of wages. Payment of the cheque had not been stopped when he got it, about May 15. His Honor said there was no doubt that what Hilton and MeWilliams had done in regard to tbis cheque was a crime. As six months had not elapsed since the date of the cheque, he hoped the police would prosecute both of them. In His Honor's opinion, it was a great pity the Legislature had not stepped in, and prevented any suit being brought on cheques given for gambling debts. All such classes of cases should not come before the Court at all.