CONFLICTING EVIDENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13226, 11 July 1906, Page 5

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE.

STRONG COMMENTS . BY A ' MAGISTRATE. I [BY TELEGRAPH.— I'MSS 'ASSOCIATION'.] : Wellington, Tuesday. "The case open.'), daylight on the transactions of some so-called men of honour." . So : said DivMcArthur, S.M., to-day. in a- judgment in a, case in which Win, Millar, turf commission agent, sued John R. McDonald, sheep-farmei, for £51 10s, the amount of money alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff to Mr. v Cowan and Messrs. Scott and Martindale, turf commission agents, for the defendant at his request. His Worship said »t was admitted that all 'other transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant .were.for belting, and he had no , doubt whatever that any transactions the plaintiff may have had with Cowan and with Scott and Martindale. were also for betting. The plaintiff put in two receipts frum these persons acknowledging the pay- ' ments of the sums of money sued for, and detailed in the statement of claim. Plaintiff slated : "He (defendant) then asked me if I would pay Cowan and .Scott and Martindale. I consented, and he said he would send me a cheque for the whole amount. I paid thefc-e amounts that day. On November 13 the defendant owed me £152.'' The defendant stated: "I never owed Millar £152 in my life. I did not see Millar that day (November 13). On that day (November 13) I did not owe Scott and Martindale or Cowan any money. I do not know Cowan. I don't owe Scott and 'Martindale anything; I don't owe Scott and Martindale twopence. I never requested Millar to I pay one farthing for me." "Either plaintiff or defendant is an unblushing perjurer." added His Worship, "There is no getting out of it, and yet there are men whose debts to one another are debts of honour. The business does not call for comment,, which would be vain in such a case." His Worship went on to say that the test' whether a demand connected with an illegal transaction was capable of being enforced at law was whether the plaintiff required any aid from the illegal transaction to establish his case. If a party could not make' out his case' except through an illegal trans- ; action, an action would not lie. The original transaction in this case it formed part of the ] statement upon which the vdaintiff claimed. J Money paid by one" person for another, at 1 his request, to persons to whom the latter had lost bets, was money-paid in respect of, a gaming contract even though the former was no party to the transaction, and. could not therefore bo. recovered- from the party at whose request it was paid. His Worship cited (several authorities, and said the plaintiff must" have known, and he had no hesitation in saying that he did know, that the money was paid for betting transactions. He (His Worship) could hardly believe that a man in plaintiff's position would borrow.money to pay the debts of a man in defendants position. Be that as it may, he certainly could not recover such sums even if so paid. The .plaintiff must be nonsuited with £2 lis costs.