IRISH SWEEP PRIZE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20886, 30 May 1931, Page 2 (Supplement)

IRISH SWEEP PRIZE.

TWO MEN CLAIM SHARE.

AN ALLEGED AGREEMENT. ITALIANS IN DUBLIN COURT. The Italian cafe proprietor, Emilio Scala, 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 to be paid, two of his fellow-countrymen, Antonio Epicolla 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. Justico 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 nclioii 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. "We can only think that the shock of victory has affected the gentleman's perspective, because he has thrown doubfc on the agreement upon which build," 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 t.'Jcre when the original agreement was executed. It just happened that the one added was the winning ticket, and it turned out to be a complimentary ticket —that is, it was one of the extra tickets thrown in with tho two books. Tho Judge: If it was intended to include the winning ticket in the original agreement, why was it not put down in its proper order? It appears to mo to have been an afterthought. " Something lor Nothing." Mr. Gavan Duffy replied that two hooks were the subject of this agreement. There was another book in which they had an interest in common, but Scala was entitled to dispose of some of those tickets to his friends. The winning ticket was one left over. Plaintiffs declared that Sea la pulled that ticket out of his waistcoat pocket and said, " Hero it is. Put the number with the others in tho agreement." Tho Judge: Then it was an afterthought ? Air. Duffy: It was in that sense. The Judge: Was this for any special consideration or merely a piece of generosity on tho part of Mr. Scala? Air. Gavan Duffy: No, when the agreement came to be put down in writing wo had all the tickets covered, including this extra ticket. The Judge: How much did you in fact pay ? Mr. Gavan Duffy: We paid our third share for two books of tickets. Groups of Tickets. Mr. Wood said tho agreement referred to two groups of tickets purchased on January 30. The Judge: That is my point. If were entitled to share in this 0110 outstanding ticket why were they not entitled to the wholo of tho outstanding group ? Counsel read affidavits by witnesses who declared that Scala had admitted that plaintiffs were equally interested with him in tli9 winning ticket. The Judge: Mr. Scala had another book, and, according to you, he agreed that the complimentary ticket should lie included in the agreement. It seems to me that this ticket conies in 011 a totally different basis. Mr. Albert Wood, K.C., replying for Scala, said: " I wish to say, hero and now, that Scala regards the insertion of the number of the ticket 011 the agreement and also other matters connected with tho agreement —a matter which your Lordship will have to investigate—as a criminal act on tho part of two persons. Money Waiting on Deposit. The Judge said that he thought" that would occur to anyono who looked at tiie 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 bo investigated; whether that possibility materialises as a fact is another question." Mr. Cecil La very, K.C., for the Committee of tho governing bodies of the hospitals, said tin money was on deposit and available for the person entitled to it. as the Court might determine. Notice had been given by Mr. Arthur Bendir that he claimed three-quarters 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 name should be 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 Judgo decided that tho prize money should remain invested until the hearing of the action or a further order. A cablegram published on April 29 said tho Court had granted the application by Mr Arthur Bendir to be paid £266,043 out of tho prize-monoy. Scala, 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 threequarters of the prizo-money on an assignment from Scala.