TURF GOSSIP.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1191, 28 December 1894, Page 25

TURF GOSSIP.

By " Gipsy Kino."

THE GAMING ACT, 1894.

A " sporting case " recently came before theWangarui Stipendiary Magistrate's Court, in which it was sought, probably for the first time since the Act was passed, to make section 7, claused, of the "Gaming Act, 1894," operative. Briefly statei.-thc particulars of the case are as follow. - r

John Porter (better known as John Mor tow, his. step name), of Wanganni, claimed from Nathaniel Nathan, of Wellington, £3O balance alleged to be due on the price of a horse (Empire).sold to defendant. The plaintiff.stated that defendant had given him, £BO cash,. £2O by a P.N., and agreed to give a farther £3O out of the first winnings of the horse. In cross examination plaintiff stated that he did not recognise Patterson (Nathan's partner) in the matter, and. had stipulated with Nathan that the £3O was to come out of the first win from date. After other evidence had been given in support of the claim, the defendant s solicitor said there were several defences, one 'on the merits and the others on law. He contended that, although the document was rudely worded, it really meant that the .£3O was to be paid out of the first stake won by the horse while in the defendants' possession. It was only reasonable to construe the instrument in that .manner, as the defendant could not pay £3O out of a stake that he did not receive. One of the legal defences was that in his opinion there was no consideration shown for the .£3O, and another (Which he considered must be fatal to the plaintiff's case) was under section 7 of " The Gaming Act of 1894," which prevented any case being brought into Court to recover money under the circumstances of the present action. The presiding Justices said they did not think the Gaming Act applied to this case, while as for the question of consideration, they considered that the present claim was part of the terms of sale of the horse. They would have to uphold the validity of the document as produced, which rendered the defendant liable, and therefore the judgment would go for the plaintiff with costs. Clause 8 of the Gaming Act reads : "No action shall be brought or maintained in any Court of Law for recovering any sum of money or valuable thing alleged to be won by way of stakes or prize on any event or contingency of or relating to any horse race, or other race, game, sport, or exercise." I think most people will recognise the case under notice as purely a civil action, affecting the sale of ahorse. The defence in this case relied on the fact that Empire had won after defendant had sold ttye liorse,

but if the MO had to be paid out of the first winnings from date, it mattered little to the plaintiff who owned the horse at the time he won. It was defendant's duty to protect himself, when selling the horse, to have made the same contingency for the payment of the .£3O. • That has been the custom amongst racing men for years. I have known a horse to change hands four times before he won, and the contingency of .£lO was duly received by the person who first sold the horse.