WINNER OF A "TREBLE"

Otago Witness, Issue 3996, 14 October 1930, Page 55

WINNER OF A "TREBLE"

COLLECTION OF PROCEEDS.

SEQUEL IN MAGISTRATE’S COURT. GISBORNE, October 7. When the Grand National race meeting took place at Christchurch m August last the three most important races were won by Aurora Borealis, Toxeuma, and Carinthia. A Gisborne resident had sorted out these as probable winners, and invested a sum of money on the “ treble.” The investment was made through an acquaintance, Charlqs D. Ferguson. When the successful “ punter,” Trevor Milton Hansen, went to collect the proceeds and received only £75 instead of £l5O as expected, in the heat of the subsequent argument Hansen used certain words to Ferguson, who then brought a civil action for slander, claiming £75 damages. The case was heard before Mr P. H. Harper, b.M., in the Magistrate’s Court to-day, and Ferguson was awarded £5 damages and costs. Hansen also proceeded against Ferguson on a claim for £75 10s, but was nonsuited, without costs at a very early stage in the action. The slander action was heard first, and it was alleged that the words complained of were used in plaintiff’s shop in the hearing of customers. The words used were: “ 1 know you’ve got that money and 1 want it. I know you’ve got it. You’re a thief. 1 thought I could trust you, but you're nothing but a thief.” The defendant also claimed the sum of £75 10s from Ferguson, this representing the amount alleged to have been received by Ferguson for the use of Hansen. Mr Burnard appeared for Ferguson, and Mr Hill for Hansen. Mr Burnard said that in the conversation the defendant had denied owing plaintiff money. Plaintiff accused him of theft in definite terms. Later plaint.ff wrote defendant, asking him to apologise, but Hansen ignored this opportunity. Counsel then called defendant, an objection by Mr Hill to this course being overruled by the magistrate. Witness said he gave-plaintiff 10s for a treble— Aurora Borealis, Toxeuma, and Carinthia, at 300 to 1, but when he went to collect plaintiff gave him only £75. Plaintiff said he could only get 150 to 1, but witness discovered later that the odds were 300 to 1. He saw plaintiff, who said that defendant had only 5s on. Defendant asserted that he gave plaintiff 10s. The complaint was that he received only £75 instead of £l5O. He admitted that he called plaintiff a thief, but said there were no people in the shop at the time. Mr Hill, for the defendant, opened by calling the plaintiff, who denied having received 103 from the defendant, but said it was ss.

The magistrate, in giving his decision, pointed out that the words as set out. in the statement of claim were undoubtedly slanderous. The defendant had admitted using them. The defendant, however, stated that nobody else was present at the interview, and this was also borne out to some extent by a witness. There was no reason to doubt the evidence of the plaintiff, and therefore he must hold that there had been a technical publication of the slander. Even so. it was still open for the defendant to escape liability by showing that the words used were justified, but

he had failed to do so. As to the measure of damages he was satisfied that the sum of £5 would cover all damage suffered by the plaintiff. Judgment, therefore, would be entered for the plaintiff for £5 and costs.

Hansen’s claim against Ferguson was quickly disposed of. Mr Hill put Hanjen in.the box and the earlier evidence was repeated. Under cross-examination Hansen admitted that he did not actually know whether the extra £75 was ever handed to Ferguson. Mr Burnard then moved for a nonsuit on the ground that there was no proof of the money ever having been received by his client. The magistrate upheld counsel’s contention and nonsuited the plaintiff, without costs.