Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RACING LITIGATION.

MAGDALVS WINNINGS.

(Pis Pbess Association.) INYERCARGILL. Sept. 4. At the Supreme Court t onlay, before Sir Joshua Williams. David Andrew Mitchell sued the executors in the estate of John Beck, deceased, for £235 10s. Beck was the owner of the racehorse Magdala and entered into an agreement with plaintiff to lease the horse to him ior the Grand National meeting of I!U2 on condition that- plaintiff paid all the fees, including training ex|»enses. and gave Beck oue-half of any stakes. Magdala won the Winter Cup. and Beck received £3OO, lei* £l4 10s riding U'es. Bock hail since died, but prior to bis death be bad filed a statement ol defence alleging that plaintiff had not carried out all the conditions, among which was a verbal agreement to put £lO on the horse if Beck had not returned to the Dominion in time to invest that sum. Book arrived at the Bluff on Monday ami tho race was run on Tuesday. Counsel for tho executors (Mr Neave) argued that the transaction came within section 71 of lite Gaining Act. that no action could he maintained for money won by way of stakes relating to a horse race. Anything arising out of an unenforceable contract was also unforeeable.

Counsel tor plaintiff (Mr Macdouald) contended that section 71 applied t*> moneys held by stake-holders and thatthe Court would not assist a fraud where reasonable interpretation of ttatutes would obviate it.

His Honor said that Mitchell had fulfilled the conditions which he was to |>crforin ami ho did not think the agreement was invalid. Plaintiff was not suing for money on a horse race and not paid, hut for money whk-h had , heen won and paid to Heck, who was hound to account for it. Section 71 of the Act applied only where money was won on a horn* race ami not paid to the winner. If the section applied in this case it would be an illegal tiling tor two persons to own a horse jointly and share its winnings. Judgment wat given for plaintiff with costs.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MS19130905.2.50

Bibliographic details

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 9589, 5 September 1913, Page 5

Word Count
346

RACING LITIGATION. Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 9589, 5 September 1913, Page 5

RACING LITIGATION. Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 9589, 5 September 1913, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert