ALLEGED LOAN

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21828, 15 December 1932, Page 11

ALLEGED LOAN

CLAIM FOR RECOVERY ESTATE OF JOHN M'COM’BH. (Per United Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, December 14. A claim for £650 AVas heard, in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr Justice Ostler. The plaintiff, though admittedly a bookmaker at the time of the transaction, claimed that the amount was a loan, and was not, as the defence suggested, owing as a gaming debt. The plaintiffs were Robert Michael Cox, of Christchurch, and Elizabeth Walsh,, of Dalgety’a Court, St. Kilda, Melbourne, executrix of the will of James Walsh, deceased, of Christchurch. The defendants were Ernest- Roland Burton and James Gibson Patterson, both of Dunedin, accountants, administrators of the estate of John M'Combe, horse trainer.

Cox said that the £650 was lent to M'Combe Avhen he was going to Australia in 1926. A cheque given in payment had been dishonoured.

The defence consisted of a general denial with, the further submission that if fjie amount was owing (which was denied) then the debt was a wager, and was rendered null and void by the Gaming Act of 1908. Mr Sim, counsel for the plaintiffs, said the claim was for money lent and due, for which the plaintiffs held M'Gombe’a cheque, dated April 4, 1927. The defence pleaded the Gaming Act. Cox and Walsh had both been convicted under the Gaming Act, and this undoubtedly provided a background for that line of defence, but because these men had been convicted of bookmaking it could not be presumed that this or any other transaction must necessarily have to do with bookmaking. The money was a loan to M'Combe, and the cash had',been taken out of an envelope kept by Cox and Walsh at a hank in Australia. M'Combe gave a cheque for the amount, but asked that it should not be presented. In the following April he made out a new cheque. M'Combe died, and the widow, when asked for the money, said there were no assets in the estate. In 1931 Cox saw an advertisement in a Dunedin paper that the trustees were selling the assets out of M'Combe’s estate, and instructed a solicitor to lodge a claim. Robert Michael Cox, in evidence, supported counsel’s statement. Wheil he spoke of the cash being taken from an envelope at the bank his Honor asked; Did you have an account at the bank? Witness: Yes. His Honor: Then why did you not operate on your account? , " Mr Sim: They did not want to confuse the transaction since they were joint lenders of the money. His Honor; Was the money kept away from the current account for income tax purposes.

Mr Sim: Your Honor will appreciate that they were bookmakers. lam not here ( to strive to condone the past, but I say that bookmakers have dealings within the law and this is one of them. Continuing, witness said that M'Combe had an excellent reputation for * honesty, and had previously repaid loans. He denied that the £OSO was the balance owing on betting transactions. : V ■ Mr Thomas, for the defence, said lie ■would show that M'Combe could easily have raised money to pay a debt of £650. He was a heavy bettor with Cox and Walsh. His wife usually telephoned the bets for him, and she was satisfied this was a gaming debt. Lurline M'Combe, widow of John M'Combe, said her husband had frequently wagered £7O or £BO on a horse race. If she had the money she would pay this debt, but she w-ould pay it as a gambling debt and not as a loan. His Honor reserved his decision.