BETTING DISPUTE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LII, Issue 17133, 8 September 1926, Page 4

BETTING DISPUTE

HALF DIVIDEND CLAIMED INTERESTING POTNT WAS IT A PARTNERSHIP? An unusual and interesting civil action. relying for its source upon a Letting transaction, occupied the attention of Messrs I). I). Hut-ton ami (has. Matthews, J'sP., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The plaintiff claimed that he gave to the defendant the sum of 10 - to »o half-shares in a ticket on a racehorse. Th(« horse. Night Gambler, came second and paid £6 6 -. bill the defendant allegedly refused to pay out half the dividend, giving it as his reason that the 10/- was money lent. The claim was, therefore, for .€3 5/-, a half share of the dividend. The plaintiff was Richard Henry Clark (Mr. Hogg), and the defendant Thomas George Lawless (Mr. ,1. Blair). Mr. Hogg explained thai just before the "tote'' closed the defendant came to the plaintiff anal asked him to n-Q shares on a ticket on Cold Dot. The plaintiff refused to do this, and the defendant then asked him which horse he considered had the .best chance. Mr. (lark replied that Night gambler was a likely winner, and the parties took a ticket on that horse, thus forming a partnership. When the plaintiff called for his half-share the following Monday the defendant said that the 10/- was money lent, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to a half-share. Mr. Lawloss, however, offered to give a halfshare of the half-share, which would equal to CI. 11/6. but the plaintiff re fused to accept this. PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE. Evidence of (he transaction was given by the plaintiff. Richard Henry Clark, who stated that ihero was ample time for the defendant to have secured the ticket before the toialisator closed. "When on the following Monday witness called on the defendant the latter handed him five 2- pieces, "That's all 1 own von." Witness put the matter in the hands of his solicitors, and on the fol> lowing Monday the defendant called him to his office and told him that he was sorrv tlie plaintiff had taken the matter to Court, and that lie thoio/hi they could come to an agreement. Mr. Lawless told witness that he had onlv fcorrowed the 10'-. and that whether the horse won or lost the money would be refunded. On at least two occasions ho had been in partnership with Mr. Lawless in "tote*' tickets; the horses had miver preyionsl v woo. and the money had not been refunded.

J'o Mr. Blair witness denied having awpioac.hed Mr. Lawless and saying "You owe me half a nicker."

Mr. Blair: You have plenty of experiencii in these betting matters?—Not much. Are von not a bookmaker?—No, sir!

Have you never made up books on sporting events? —No, sir! Mr. Hogg: What's a'l this leading to? Tt appears to he most irrelevant.

Further examined bv Mr. Blair witness said he was firmly impressed that the defendant asked him to make up a ticket. As far as witness could see there was no one about at the time. CASK FOR THE DEFENCE. For the defence Mr. Blair said the, plaintiff himself was not at all certain whether it was a partnership agreement or a loan. No dishonorable man would have defended such an action. The position was that th 0 machine was on the point- of closing, and Mr. Lawless put, his hand in his pocket and found that he had not a £] note. He hurriedly asked the plaintiff to lend him the required amount. Mr. Lawless' son overheard the conversation and he would confirm the defendant's account as to what took place. Evidence Oil these lines was »iven by the defendant. Examined by Mr. Hogy witness said he had not mentioned the. horse Gold Dot to Mr. Clark, tnor had he at any time made up a ticket with him. He did not work on commissions, and he denied ever having dono bookmaking. To the Bench witness denied having offered the plaintiff £1 11/- on the following Monday. Desmond Lawless corroborated his father's evidence regarding the transaction.

The Bench said that, on the preponderance of evidence in frfvor of the defendant judgment would be given for him with costs.