A DEBT OF HONOUR,

Otago Witness, Issue 2326, 29 September 1898, Page 32

A DEBT OF HONOUR,

Judge Kettle recently had before him at Wanganui a case of some interest to the racing community. From Sporting Review's report it appears that three Maoris decided to make up a ticket on Alpine in the Second Hack Hurdles at the last Wanganui Spring meeting in October. One put in 10s, and the other two 5s each. Subsequently the Maori who held the half share sold one half of the same to another Maori for ss, receiving cash for that amount. Alpine won, and paid £31 ss, the Maori who had given 10s receiving £15 17s 6d. His dusky friend, who was aware of his having resold half, in handing it to him said, l " This is for yourself and friend." The Native, however, objected to parting, hence the court case under notice. Mr Kettle delivered a lengthy judgment, referring to the bearing of the Gaming Act, and oiting several similar cases heard before several of the courts. His Honor proceeded thus: If one man chooses to trust another in matters which are called " matters of honour," he must do so at his own risk, and with a full knowledge that he must suffer if the person whom he has trusted chooses to repudiate what is called his " debt of honour." If the plaintiff had been one of he party who obtained the ticket in the first instance, and the persos who received the dividend from the totalisator had refused to pay plaintiff his share of the money, I might have held on the authority of Dr Matfcos v. Benjamin that plaintiff was entitled to maintain, an action for money had and received. It is not, however, necessary that I should decide this question in the present case. Plaintiff was not an original shareholder. He purchased from defendant a half share in his (defendant's) interest in the ticket after it had been procured. The transaction was between plaintiff .and defendant alone. There was no privity of contract between plaintiff and the totalisator, and in order to make out case defendant is compelled to prove and rely upon what, in my opinion, is an illegal contract. The defendant certainly owes plaintiff a " debt' of honour," but unfortunately plaintiff can only look for payment to defendant's sense of honour, if he has any. Judgment will therefore be entered for defendant, but, having regard to the special circumstances of this case, without co3ts.