MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22101, 3 November 1933, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Thursday, November 2. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) Judgment by default was given in the following cases:—D.l.C. v. S. Poison, claim £1 9s lid, goods supplied, with costa (10s); D.I.C. v. James Burns (Wyndham), claim £ll 2s 2d, goods supplied, with costs (£2 14s) ; Commissioner of Taxes v. Alexander Nicholson, claim £4 6s Bd, income tax, with costs (13s); Hunt and White v. Rowland F. Harrex (Becks), claim £2 3s, goods supplied, with costs (£1 7s 6d); W. L, Buddicomb v. Nathaniel Cowie (Arrowtown), claim £1 15s, on an account due, with costs (8s). JUDGMENT SUMMONS. C. Moller and Sons v. Charles M'Gill, claim £2 18s, on a judgment summons. —The defendant was ordered to pay the amount forthwith, with costs (6s), in default three days’ imprisonment. A GAME OF POKER. i Robert' Johnson (a manufacturer) proceeded against Robert Simpson, licensee of the Rugby Hotel, claiming to recover £ls 10s, balance of an amount lent by Johnson to Simpson during the course of a game of poker over two years ago. Mr A. G. Neill appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr E ; J. Anderson for the defendant. Mr Neill stated that this claim represented the balance of an amount of £3O 10s lent by Johnson to Simpson on the night of July 7, 1931. Simpson tendered a cheque for £lO to Johnson the following day, and paid a further £5 in September of this year, thus leaving the balance of £ls 10s unpaid. Mr Neill said he understood that the defendant intended to invoke the aid of the Gaming Act and have Johnson nonsuited. However, the latter proposed to take the opportunity of placing the facts before the court. Johnson gave evidence bearing out Mr Neill’s statement. Cross-examined by Mr Anderson, Johnson said that, to be quite candid, the debt had been incurred during the course of a game of poker. The defendant had owed him £2 2s 6d and had asked him to make it a “ fiver.” At various times during the evening he had lent Simpson further sums. Mr Anderson asked witness how he remembered, after all this time, that the total amount was £3O 10s. Johnson said that he took a note of it at the time. It was a poker school. There were six in the school. Mr Anderson: Then this £3O 10s is for the payment of a gambling debt? Johnson: No; I was a loser on the evening. Mr Anderson: But you were gambling? Johnson: Yes. Mr Anderson said he did not know that he need go any further, and asked the magistrate for a nonsuit. Johnson, in reply to examination by Mr Neill, said that he had lost £lB that night out of his own pocket, and had had to borrow from the others to keep Simpson going. The money he had borrowed he had paid back the following day. After Simpson had paid him the first instalment he had told him he would settle up when things improved. Simpson had never disputed the amount, but had said that times were hard, and that he would pay when he could. It was only when the mattfer was in the hands of the solicitor that Simpson said he would invoke the aid of the Gaming Act. As a debt of honour he would not recognise it.

Mr Anderson: You knew it- was a gambling debt? Johnson denied this. He said that he had lent the money to Simpson. He admitted, however, that the debt arose out of gambling. Mr Neill then stated that he was prepared to accept a nonsuit. Mr Bartholomew: Yes. The court cannot be used as an instrument to enforce payment of a debt of this nature.

Johnson was nonsuited, costs of £2 2s being allowed against him.