BETTING TRANSACTION

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19130, 26 September 1936, Page 15

BETTING TRANSACTION

fISHONOUKED CHEQUE ■ CLAIM BY T OMAK GISBORNE DEFENDANT Evidence was heard in the Gisborue Magistrate's Court this afternoon on commission from Auckland in a case in; -which a : betting transaction waf> concerned. 'Tbe plaintiff was Emily HcAdJanu. : nijMiieu. woman, Auekiaua, anu tue m- ;' xuMuaut Wiliiaiu ALeKniuon, niueu. agent, (iisDome. ine pramuli eiau-i- ---| eaf£4o as the amount of a cheque dajfeti May x 6, iv6o, m&ue oy tne u «- fejidant and payable on demand auu ' uducii tne ueienuaiu nad not paid. The j defence disclaimed liability for payment because'the cheque w.as givtui - in a betting transaction. Mr. J. V Q. 1 Nolan, instructed from Auckland, appeared for, the plaintiff, and Mr. S. v.. Bpaufoy appeared for the defendant: j The evidence' taken was that of the de- . fendant. I" The defendant's evidence. was that he B was sued by Emily Headland, for £4O. r Hp had known the plaintiff for about ' two years, adding that the plaintiff was e a'bookmaker, rapping a pastrycooks 1 business as a sideluie. He telephoned £ her on May 7 and gave her four bets . of £lO each. All four horses lost. K Defendant could not remember which « race meeting the bets were made on. Oa the following day plaintiff sent him I a telegram asking for a telegraphed money order for £4O. Defendant replied by telegram that his house had been burned down that morning, and he 'would compjunicat.e with her later. On. May 18 he stent the pjaintift a cheque k for. £4O, and; asking her that on ac- [ count of his loss through the fire to hold the cheque until he telegraphed her advising when to pay the ■ cheque in. Plaintiff paid? the cheque in several times without any advice "from I the defendant, and the cheque was dis- . honoured. He made the cHeque payable ; to E. Headland. To Mr. Nolan, defendant said that : the, cheque- was drawn on the Bank of I Australasia, at which he had an account i at'; that time. He did not have an 1 account there now. He closed it either at.'the end of June or the beginning of | July. f St. jSJo^n..:: Xou: have, madfetbia same plea befojcettft cdheri aummops?"Witness■:■ This is the first' time I have I ever defended a betting, summons; I % thi? the, first time you have given jjg nojico-to-defend.* supimons arising out I ofra betting transaction?—What do you ■ mean? * ■ Come„cojne. Xou, kftOK, what J Is this the first tinie : yon have given, najice of yppr. intention' to defend an ac£jon such, as- this?—L have on a couple I oft"occasions ip bookmakers who have dope the, same-, to. i yo you obpaider yourself an honorable, | maja ?—!**; business 1 do. s"betting your business?—>;o. ! And r do" yo.u think ii an honorable, thing to defend "a case like this?—She had no j instructions to present the cheque. k Can we take it that you are a truth- -* fulfman?—l hope so. I In business, apd im betting?—Xes. Xou would hot-, for instance* think of | obtaining money for anyone by representing a thing-which-was untrue?— No. ]Jo you know a man called Walsh who lives in Gisborne?—Yes. Have vou had business dealings with hiiM—Yl'cs. Both betting and business deaphgs. T * rt "ifave. ypp eyer. obtained, apy advances frpih Him-on. reprepeptataons r.ekvtinfj» to timber?—Yes. Were those representations true and, « correct?—Yes. n "Birningrto,His Worship, the defendant tßai3: Do'these matters relate to this case of, batting? His Worship: So far as creditabihty. Whether you are to be believed or not. Mr. Nolan.: Have you had business I dealings with Mr. Bushnell and obtained I advances him? l Witness:"For Business dealings, yes. Were those 'advances made On representations made as to timber.?—One of • them was. And were those representations true? ! -Yes. fitness added that he had also secured advances on representations relating to \ tiipber from, other, people up to £IOOO. Were the representations made true ; and correct ?—Some were and-some were -. nof. I If I suggest toyop that the reprcsentn- : tions relating to, some £7OO were entirely | false, would you concede that that was I the case?—Yes. ■■' Do ypu still say that the representations made fo Mr. Walsh' were true in | eysy pstßafeuJaxtr-Yes. 1 How much money, did; you obtain from ' him?—About £275*.' Did you then represent that you were able to purchase certain timber from the South Island?—Ytes. And in consequence of that Mr. Wt|lsh put up his : money?—Yes. |fas any of the timber materialised 1 —lt is ail in the bush. It has been a bad venture. All in tho bujjh, to Mr. Walsh, I suggest.—l would not say that. Has Mr. Walsh had back his money?—Not yet. And you got it in 1934?—About October, 1934. He wa3 not misled, but just unlucky.—Y#s. I have stood all the expenses. What did they come to?—I could not say how much. You never furnished n-n account to ,Mr. Walsh?—No. Defendant added that the representations to "Mr. Bushnell were correct <;o far as the purchases wore con--1 ccrjicd. I Mr. Nolan: Where Tyero thoy false I then?—So far as the trouble of getR ting it from the bush. H To what extent aro you indebted to ■ him?—About £IOO. * Do you know a steward at a club ' in ; Waipukurau?—l met a steward ; there once. J. Who introduced you?—l could not tell you. Did you borrow any money from 1 him?—No- , .. . f Did you eomo indebted to him?— I got him; to put some money on some I horses for somebody in Palmerston North. Who was it?—l will not tell you. The steward sued you for the amount concerned?—Yes. And on that occasion yon gave notice to defend the summons on the f grounds, that it was gambling trans : l action? —Yes. L Did you refer the steward to the i centleman in Palmerston North!—No, I but he knew. who. it was. I Did the steward know your friend in I- Palmerston North?—No, _ . Have you met a steward in the Napier f club?—No. , I understand that you were concerned f in a transaction which Resulted in two I telegraph officers being dismissed from the service?—Yes. it was a systematic dating back ot telegrams?—Not so far as I was conteMrb£d. »•:-;.

In spite of what they said?—They did not s,ay I was concerned iii it. But you admitted that you were?No. I was, charged in connection with it, but I was not concerned. You were not convicted?—No. This concluded the evidence.