A DEBT OF HONOUR.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11771, 28 September 1901, Page 2 (Supplement)

A DEBT OF HONOUR.

OFFICERS' GAMBLING ON A LINER LEADS TO A LAWSUIT. Gaming transactions among officers on board a British transport while they were returning from South Africa, where they had been serving, led to an action in the King's Bench Division, which was heard before Mr. Justice Kennedy. The ' plaintiff, Claude Lister, an officer in the South African Constabulary, sued Ronald Stewart Mackenzie, an officer in the Seaforth Highlanders, at present at the School of Musketry at By the,' to recover £330 odd, money won by plaintiff from defendant at. chemin de fer. It was said on behalf on defendant that the debt was not recoverable under the Gaming Act, and a plea of infancy was also relied on. Defendant was called, and stated, in reply to the judge, that he was under nineteen years of age, and in answer to counsel said be wrote a letter to plaintiff on the subject of his claim and promising to pay. He had received one letter from plaintiff since, but had not written him at all. The amount claimed was a balance. Plaintiff was over 30. He was playing alone with the plaintiff when the debt was incurred.

Mr. Cannot (for plaintiff): Do you rely on the Gaming Act? The learned Judge : That is not a question for him. It is a question for me whether if it is a gaming transaction I can allow it or not. He is entitled to rely upon every defence his counsel takes for him. Mr. Cannot: He has himself set up the Gaming Act in his affidavit, and I wish to know if he relies upon it. The judge read defendant's affidavit, which was to the effect that lie was induced by plaintiff to play with him in his cabin at a game of chance known as chemin de fer, at which he lost. He further said he was still a minor, and was informed and believed that on the merits of the case, and also by virtue of the provisions of the Gaming Act, he had a good defence to this action. Cross-examined by his own counsel (Mr. Madden) he said he landed from South Africa on April 21, and the writ was served on May 6. He paid plaintiff the day they left the ship £50, and had paid £44 for him to Captain Barclay, and £18 to Captain Davis, or £112 in all." Mr. Lister knew his age. Do you still look upon it as a debt of honour, and do you intend to pay as soon as you can? Yes.

Mr. Cannot said lie had put in a letter which was an admission of indebtedness.

Re-examined: The plaintiff knew he was a minor, because in Captain Powell's cabin, where plaintiff, himself, and Captain Barclay were present, conversation turned to the subject of ages. He did not owe Captain Powell or Captain Barclay any money. Mr. Madden said that, of course, in this case he had pleaded the Gaming Act, and also that defendant was a minor. This action had been brought in order to try to force the hands of defendant, who would pay when he was able.

The learned judge said he was not going into the merits of the case. The Gaming Act had been pleaded. He would assume that the gaming was perfectly fair, but that plea having been put upon the record the debt was not recoverable. He must, therefore, give judgment for defendant, with costs.

Mr. Cannot asked whether the judge acted upon both grounds, because the mere statement by defendant that he was only 19 did not sufficiently prove that fact. The learned judge said that this was distinctly a gaming debt, and in his view that was sufficient, although having seen defendant he should have thought the other ground good enough. Mr. Madden repeated that defendant was not trying to get out of a debt of honour, as he intended to pay it. The learned judge again declined to have anything to do with the case outside of the point which he had decided. He had nothing to do with matters which he had not got before him. Judgment was entered for defendant, with costs.