WIN FOR PLAINTIFFS

Taranaki Daily News, 21 December 1932, Page 5

WIN FOR PLAINTIFFS

■ • ■ ■ ■• ■■ ■. . . . ■ ■ . r ; CLAIM AGAINST ESTATE. ' .;?• ■. ...- . : '“.■■■ SUM OF £650 AWARDED. . ' Christchurch, Dec. 19. •kgi Judgment for plaintiffs was given the Supreme Court by Mr. Justfc* / ; Ostler to-day in the case in which Robert Cox, Christchurch, and Elizabeth Walsh, Melbourne, executrix in tate of James Walsh, claimed £650 front ; Ernest. Roland Burton and James Gibbon Patterson, both of Dunedin, ad- J ministrators in the estate of John MeCombe, horse trainer. The case was one in which it was claimed that a firm : of bookmakers lent the sum claimed ,■ to the horse owner and trainer, who '. gave them a cheque in return. ;. The judgment stated, inter alia, thaf plaintiff Cox and one James Walsh . 1926 were carrying on and for some . time had been carrying oh the busi- ... ness of bookmakers in McCombe, in 1926, was a horse trainer.’ in Riccarton, It is common ground that he had many’ bets with Cox'and, - Walsh, Walsh died in December, 1926,’ and the only person alive who can speak as to the origin of the cheque is Cox, . His evidence is that in March, 1926, Me- '. Combe asked for, and was granted,.; a. loan of £650 by Cox and Walsh, and then gave them a cheque on the Union / ■ Bank for £650 dated March 31, 1936. That cheque' was produced when Cox presented the. cheque at the- bank, ./ was told that no arrangements had been ■ made for meeting it. The defence is that the cheque was given for a gambling debt and therefore no action can be brought on it The onus was on defendants to prove that / the cheque was affected with illegality " c< as having been given for a gambling y : debt This onus has not been distil? charged. Dealing with the action taken by CoX'-'S-; j with the cheque, the judge said:’’:*!<,-' have no reason to disbelieve that i part of Cox’s evidence in which he described the steps he took to obtain payment oa : his cheque. Whatever consideration foe. the cheque may have been it is evidence that McCombe owed money and Cox would naturally endeavour to collect it ; When he says, therefore, that upon the | ledgerkeeper informing him that there was no money to meet the cheque saw McCombe and informed him,-I i| believe his evidence because that is what. .• I he would naturally do. Moreover, h«-". I would naturally see McCombe time to time in an endeavour to obtain ■j I payment and he no doubt obtained I repeated promises of payment . whidrjy>;| would be good evidence of a waiver if I such were necessary. ’' . I “When reduced to its elements ; this : 1 case is a very simple one. Plaintiffs I produce the cheque signed by McComb* I and it is admitted by Mrs. McCombe | that her husband owed the money. is not suggested that it has ever i been I paid. The only suggestion is that it I was a gaming transaction. have failed to prove this and therefor* I they are liable to tthe extent of the a>- ' | sets of McCombe’s estate to pay ;| debt, which must be presumed to hw*M|| been given on good consideration until I the contrary is proved.” Judgment was given for plaintiffs 1 against defendants as administrators in the McCombe’s estate for £650, withr , I costs, but without interest. . . y ; I