PUNTER AND PENGILLER.

NZ Truth, Issue 56, 14 July 1906, Page 2

PUNTER AND PENGILLER.

SPORT AND SPECULATION.

A Big Bettor Sued fey a CdOkie.

Strong Swearing m a Queer Case.

Magistrate McArthur PJfldg for

Deferidant.

The report hereunfief df a civil case heard before Dr. McArthuf, S;M., at the Magistrate's Court, Wellington, last Tuesday week will prove of interest to most folk who follow racing m these isolated isles. The case was one wherein one William Miller, a. commission agent, sued Johfi itodefick McDonald, described by Mr W'il^ ford as the "Betting King of NeW Zealand," for the sum of £52. Mr Wilford appeared for the pl&iivtiff and Mr Von Haast for the defendant. > ' ■ In stating the case Mr Wilford described McDonald's transacMbhs m the betting world as enormous. He had recently backed a horse to win. £2,000, but had declined to pay the bookm ßikers. The plaintiff iit this case h&d oti riiatty occasions td invest' tnoh^y for the defendant m sums which would STAGGER SOME PEOPLE. > Those sums were invested and the plaintiff looked upon himself as a kind . of agent for the defendant. Cheques had passed between Millet and MeDoffald arid vice versa. McDonald oh one occasion met Miller at the Club Hotel and- at that time* owed him £152 and further get into' Miller's debt by another, £62, as he would explaini McDonald; s said Mr i Wilford, owed to Scott- and Martin-^ dale £262 10s, Ross ahd BfadshaW £227 10s, Law £200, LbVeldck £7i and James Beckett something like £284. In fact he was alleged to owe close oh £2,000. The defence he imagined, was that the claim was over a betting transaction and vfM therefore illegal. ' After, referring to the. legal aspect of the matter as laid down m the case of Siiripsoh v. Bloss and ■■tfitM V. Nicholls, the principle df Which .Was that the" test was Whether h, demand comieoted with a.n illegal transaction is capable of being enforced by lAW, and, whether it required legal kid to establish ah illegal tr&nsaeti&n flS* Wilfbrd went eft tb say/ that he was tibt such a simpleton as hot to .How' that the Gaming Laws We're, a bar to the repoverv of betting debts, but 'he\ could honestly still kpplv fbr judgment ;fbr Miller. There Cbuld feg no grounds of meflit m the defence ; Miller had paid out money that he had. Vaised on his furniture, oh Mg j ' Donald's account. If McDonald got out of it. well and pood; The plaintiff would be sport enough; to admit he hafl lost, but the defend&flt would have to . \ STAISFJO TMEODItJM/ bf hte fellow men. After detaiiifig the transactions m dispute, dit^twafds .given m evidence by Miller, Mr Wilford asked his Warship' fiot --'id gtr4i^_thj^.lette» of the %aw; to" alibis Mcifonalfi tb-Vo free. It tha^ Were fibii possible He WJbtild ftsfr 16f a : t"efdicsfc; of £19 as being a legal claim . under tha\ sum of £2O 4 and McDonald Would be. made a present of '■' the* balance. ' : Miller went into the witness bb£ and described hlimself as a' cbtrimissibn agent. He had known M&Donald, for about five br six y fears « He had met him m connection With fade tneetingg up till the; last fbUt of five months. Their relations Mb always been vetf friendly. He had ptit mbne"y On horses for him. ASked 1 to mentioii one horse, the. Witness said he ■ HAD BACKED PARITHTU tb win £3^0(56 m the^eW Zealand .OttpY. Th&t hbfge. fafl second, Me* Donald had not paid up till that day.' McDonald had gone to; Alistf alia and oil his return told witness that he; •bad Won" about £1^200; Witness thought McDonald Was p'resetit at a race meeting which was bailed gtead'd day, McDonald bWed hiffi £IS2 which lie had piaaed for hitii oh the N.Z. Gup, On 13th, ht sftW MbDOfial-d at the OlUb &ote\, He was talking to Walter Jdrgetiseti ahd .Stew Art W&ddeii > (the Mbh. H. D. Ormdred'g v ttaih6r). A Ail Md A drink and witness and Mci3bn&ld W§fl# into the cbmmeicial room. Witness

asked for some money and McDonald |aiQ tfiat a"s. soon as he refurned noifie he would forward him a cheque. TitSft he requested that Sritnejes should pay. t^6 small am punts «f £2(5 18b %q Scott and Martindale and £25 10 t§ 6dwin McDonald promised t6 §en'l that amount along als». Witiߧs's BStrbwed some money on a. bill of Sftle 6Ver his furniture, from Wflllef Sniaife; the pawn-broker, and baid .the! dfebts m aue^tion for which he held receipts, which were produced. *The pr6Hiised cheque did not arriYs and on innumei'able occasions • after that Witness made demand for his mofieyj but was put off by pi-onuse* tb flat the following month. Oil one occasibft McDonald jsaid he was -waibin^ tb get his sheep shorn. Mr Wilfbrd : He had them shorn ! Dr. McArthur : He has his lamb ! Witness said he had nofc.got hia ftibney at all, though he had asked for the £52 and told McDonald that the other sum coiild remain m abeyance. , . Cross-examined by Mr Von Haast, Miller saiS that the money owed to him by McDbnaJd was for bets. He haid given McDonald a r state;Tieht of the business done. • A^mari n&tn*d Ryan n"ad guaranteed him' £3o* brith* Bill" of .sale efcf m nrmum. %'pn i he was renuestecl to pfty those* sitms to Scott and MartiMals arid $>>•#** he did hat . . BOTHER HIS HEAD . to ask McDonald what the sums. -were for. Had it been suggested 'that the sumS Were for betting he : would not have scouted the idea. McDonald was a wealthy man and it might have ( befh a C6mftiefcial tfan§actidh. Hs t had intfbdifeed the" iwhet pi. FfefitutH j to McDonald j- aftd tii6 oWher ar>d Me- j Donald fell over one another *Vhen / the ibtntet iea.filed that McDohaldf M-d backed his hefSe -t-3 win 6 ga««/ attibuht; . : , X Mr Wilford . next took tht aitek-{ ttif esome step ef \ DIVIMG INTO fM^ ENiMf^SS / dAMP ; and called the defendant, Johp &Q&--eiriOk McDonald, who said lie was s / Sheep-farmer near LeViri. He had a • bout 13,000 acres of leasehold and freehold land Which carried abQUjfc 20,000 shee^ H§ admitteti thai .. M kriew Miller by um\, but had sg&ferily_ spoken to him jn ! his life. H* 6Sitiitted having Written ft smalt efiftf/u* for Millftr: He would not dwn <te Havihg signed a dpz6tl ctieqUsi 'Atil Miller, Btit eventually ownga to \fc bout half^dazeiY. Thosi6 ' J eti»q»|fji Wefe 'fbif b«ttin&, ; > ( Mr Wilford : Tb .the toan f&* jujst knew by sight ?^Yes. \ i , Jitst so ! Did yoii. iciibw his hafta*? —I haVe duly recliitl^ itnQvfii }ili ' ' V Though vbu iii^e sigfig'd" 6MQii6tf fSf \ him ?'*-! ffiean jukt of late yes?t.-;- say \ five.. or six year's.- Witness \ Miller as a pusliihs niaii Whs'pjßkai his iioSeahy Where. "Afiywiiere 1 b^t fiit'p ■ f eiit .Mnisiag acflbimt" said Mt ( Wiifbrd. "Nof'Vft* plied the withes^ ,: ''nor.: is mf p«eK#t either,'^ : 5 ;.." -• . < Did you back Paritutu fbf the X.2. cupr—yesv ■■■•, . T6 Win hbw thiieh I^MOQ: . U thai? all ?^YeS, i. ; He adfiiitted liaying -MekM Magti^ toiig^. ; f er : the Melbeurfie; .Cup ; Ht . was lai d M ,606 to -#150, but ths, bet h&fl hot , beeji ittade With -fclje l^6kmalthig firm of Wbbds and Cbi M$ had . ;■::'•. .-' - •"•■•■ -.•' mtf %m thu m 6 ijecause" the ddedtmt had fiot Besh s»H tb nim, if : the aCGbtlfit <$&* Sent hi would, pay. it. : \ . - 'Were you not given aft ordier for that, £100 about a mbiith ago ?— No, never iii fflV life. Y~6li\yours.elf (Mr Wilford) gave me a let^i?- ti intf«duptibn tb one firm -but I don't Know Whethef it Was that fifm:t made th« bet Witli. :':..-■ Mi Wiifdrd i I jibte it UtiWi ! McDbfiald ! If it wag ybu get fhefil to send the 1 acedunt and .thsy will &% tneir flibiiey. , I ■ \M% Wilfbrd : Db r ; they^e 4ur"e ti Say "Wh&t aboiiß thisl than ybu . Sai-d was p iiilitf ' Well he; is all ti^ht. .MoDefifttti' -ctenied tSliiflg aftVVddy tlia^g hfed . . ' '; mn £§ ( OQO IN AtISTRALIA; It Ijad : appeafed hi the "Weekly ' iPfggg." • Witness said life. Was tola that It had appeared'ia the teAst. H* defilgd thfet he aweid Miilei ;V K«__ agaijh repeated tlrat he hid '©nlf knp/iyn Millw by sight "like y©V' hd fddejt to Mr Wiiford= W^o retorted "1 Kh6W Witt better' than, thai Xi Is A jdhmt i?i iftine &M he pats MS. ' '

i McDonald went on to saly that he bad paid 'Jorgensen £106 he owed kirn, Ou th» day stated Vby Miller he ' 4i4 net sm him at the Club Hotel. | Ib it th» truth when you say you Aiffo't Ipioir th« bookmakers you had i wajttred to win £2,000 from ?— Yes. T> -that statement as true as the ©ihers (fou have just made ?— Yes. Jf t*» horse had won they knew to whom to send the £2,000 ?— Yes. llt q^eKied iwiTing owed the sums of t £26 10s m& £3p 10s to Scott and L M4rtiJid«lo aftd C/'owan. He knew the 3 foiaiw li«t did not know Cowan. %H* owfd Scott and Martindale g£ *ot(HuM5 at all. He denied owing ■M** sum of £1,862 10s to Scott itand. Martindak, • Rpss and BradLair. Lovelock (he owed him ?7 moutr) '«od b«- Admitted owing ■ a p fttf t» Beckett. HE OWED NOTHING t» Youall and Ryan over Paritutu. You are square with them all ?— Yes, nuite. . . ' , < He admitted that he -owed £12 to _.JBatisett and G^4^i;\H^|. denied that he had "a^iiftwtejct /khlcie last January owinf £1,80^6 to" boqton'akers. Is it a fact that. S cott dnd Martindale and other bookmakers have absolutely failed -to get their, money from yow—Sfiott and Martindale's aectwit tiiinj? £260 odd ?—I don't • -Qyjk th«m "Uppence." yo* •bm* round and tell them s»?~Y»*, I will. In answer to Mr Von Haast Mc- ■ Donald said h« had never requested Miliif ; , to : p# Scbtt and Martindale ••: and .Cowan. ; .''.. ■■/■ --. - . ■ "• Jtjr Voji Haast, m .askins: fpr the < >lk^atift be nonrsuited, 1 quoted the • kaw of Gaining, After Mr Wilford )m& replitd, Dr. McArthur said he woi|l4 reserre his decision till the j followiHß Tuesday; July 10 . j Liast Taeedav morning Dr. McArtsh*r, S.M «»te his, reserved judp^nent ia tk» natter. He said that it was ' aifliltt^d* that all the other trans-.-iofe»-ic 6«tw*eH the plaintiff and the ' iMuuiMit v«r& lor betting and he ' Ma 4 :; ju> 4»»bt -wbateyer that ,any traASactiew; ih* plaintiff might have hsii! with Cowan and Scott and Mar- . tindaia w»re aUo for bettinr. Miller; .' had put m two receipts from tJbbse persons acknowledging the payments of the sums of money sued for. The DlaintiS had said that he pa4d the moaies at McDonald's. request: The ditoftdant said he had not requested Milltr to piv one farthing for him.. l&ijh».r tb» plaintiff or the defendant AN UNBLUSHING PERJURER. TJ»#r» was no getting out of it, and • ye^ijhest wer« men whose debts to one aaothw ware debts, of honor. The busiaaiss UiA not call for comment, wtiich wo»Id be vain m such a man. The test whether a, demand oonnected an illegal transaction • was cAßabl* of being enforced 'at law, was whether the nlaintiff required ,mr aid from the illegal transaction ' so establish his case, If a party c«ttld not make out his ease exoept. tbro*gh ah illesral transaction an acti«a could not lie. The original iransaction m this case formed part of tiie statement imotf which Miller ' claimed, lloriiy paid by one person . for anothar" *t>" his request to per- •• scuw to i whom the latter had lost bejfcs ir as mon*y paid m respect of a g3«niag contract: even though the . .-farmer was no party to the tralisao^iett; and coul d not , therefore be : re- '"' cSVpfaid £rom th# party at whose re- .[ cy»si t> was paid. He referred to the; '" ; case of Tatoni v. Reeve, 1898, and , :-. a, iU t. Brown, 1892. and the N.Z. v C .raln^. '-^4-, Lotteries Act. v ißßl, «a.^:o4 83, 'which orovided that all .'. roa^fadi^ or agreements, whether by ?Vir»l» or m writinc, by wa? of gamihp: or watering shall be hull, and void ...arid bo suit^Jiall be brought oi.maintained^^ m! any wwb of law or equity for reoaTerin^ any su?n of money or Valuable thin^ alleged to be won unob any Wager or which shall have BEEN DEPOSITED \ ,ifl ihe hanis of a&r person to abide the evehVon wMch >ny wager shall have been maw. The Gaming Act of. 18.94: provided I**t atir promise, expressed or jmpliwl, to pay any person any sum of money paid by him under or m respect of suit contract or agreement rendered null and void by the .principal act, shall be null and void and no action shall be brought or maintained to recover any such sum of money . or anr aum of mpney, won, lost or staked m any betting transaction whatever. The plaintiff' must. ■ have known and he (the Magistrate) had no habitation m saying that he did 5 know tbat the money- was paid for -betting transactions.- He could hardly beliftTe that a man m. plaintiff's position would borrow mpriey to pay tfia debts of a man m McDonald's, position. Be that as it might, he certainly could not recover such sums even if so paid. The case onened dayliiErht on the transactions of. some so-called men of honor, . The plaintiff was non-suited with costs. • • ■- . ■ ; •