DLSIIONOURED CHEQUE

Southland Times, Issue 19458, 23 January 1925, Page 5

DLSIIONOURED CHEQUE

A TURF TRANSACTION. INTERESTING COURT CASE. A MAN AND HIS BETS. The results of alleged business dealing by post in connection with the turf were placed before the Magistrate, Mr G. Cruickshank, in the Civil Court yesterday. William Arthur Crighton (Mr Gordon Reed) claimed from A. V. Whitta, of Christchurch, tobacconist, the sum of £32 IQs being the amount of a cheque received from defendant and cashed by witness which was afterwards dishonoured at the Commercial Bank, Invercargill. Defendant did not appear and was represented by Mr T. Meredith. William Arthur Crighton, farmer, of Otatara, said that he received a cheque for £32 10s from the defendant and immediately cashed it at H. and J. Smith’s. When the cheque was presented it was dishonoured and witness had refunded H. and J. Smith the amount. He now claimed for the amount. Mr Meredith: Tell the Court what this cheque was in payment of. Witness: Well, as a matter of fact, your Worship, it was for a bet. Mr Meredith: You know you were advised that this action could not possibly succeed. Mr Reed took exception to this question saying the matter had been a confidential one. Mr Meredith: Oh, I don’t know. To the witness: You have brought up this case as a “try on.” Witness: What do you mean by a “try on ?” Mr Meredith: You thought that you could bluff Whitta into paying you the amount. Witness: Nothing of the sort. Under further cross examination witness said that with three others he had invested £l2 on horses with defendant, £lO on one horse and £2 on another. He had posted the money in the presence of the others. Mr Meredith: Was the money sent in a registered letter? Witness: No. My instructions on the card I received were to avoid registering. In explaining the system followed witness produced cards containing instructions for forwarding letters, telegrams, and money orders, each with a different addressed name. He also handed to his Worship a printed telegraph code for use in the transactions, and code words such as—lo/—“Will”; £l “Len”; £2—“Mark.” Continuing witness said that when he cashed the cheque he paid his friends and thus was the loser of the whole £lO. Mr Meredith: Who were your friends? Witness: I am not going to say. Mr Meredith: Oh yes you are. Tell the Court who the others were. Witness: Don’t you try to me. I am not going to say. At the suggestion of his Worship the three were dubbed A, B, and C. Witness ■ then explained that A, B, C and he I each contributed towards the £lO. The ! horse won and the dividend came to the I amount claimed. “Where is my £lO. That’s j what I want to know ?” he added. Witness also said that he had not dealt with deI fendant previously. He was unable to ’ produce the details of his investments. He I had kept a witness as to the transactions 1 recorded, in the Court all afternoon but i he had been forced to leave before the case ■ was heard. Mr Meredith: Are you aware that it is the practice with bookmakers to issue a 1 statement with the winning and losing investments recorded upon it ? j Witness: It is not the practice, for toI day I examined the records of some big ! —up to £3oo—only a few doors from here, and only the amount due was staled, j For the defence Mr Meredith said that i the case had arisen through a remarkable coincidence. Another man named Walter i Arthur Crighton, of Wyndham, had .laid ■ a bet of the same amount and had won the same sum. The dividend had been . returned by mistake to William A. Crighton, ■of Otatara, who had 'cashed the cheque. ! Walter Crighton had wired defendant saying he had not received the cheque, and ■ seeing the mistake, defendant had taken i steps to protect himself. I His Worship: You mean that the plain- ' tiff has received the cheque and made up [the story about sending the money away? Mr Meredith: Yes. It was easy for the plaintiff to invent fhe story as he had ail the particulars in front of him from the cards. To plaintiff: We allege that you stole that cheque. Plaintiff: I don’t care what you alleg*. I posted that money and I am entitled to get it back. In continuing, Mr Meredith said that as 1 a matter of fact plaintiff did not back the i horse at all. Defendant had no records of : any dealings with him. He was not going 1 to say that he had not done a little busiI ness with such people personally and he I knew the system adopted by them. Plaintiff had not produced any proof of the letter being sent by him and had nothing to show that it was sent. He would submit that plaintiff had no claim. Mr Reed said that his client’s best course was to sue for his £lO. He was entitled to be awarded that amount with costs. Mr Meredith: You wanted the publicity for Whitta. Now you’ve got it you will have to pay for it. His Worship said that plaintiff had no grounds for his claim. It would be nonsuited with costs £3.