A NOVEL CASE.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 144086, 3 May 1913, Page 5

A NOVEL CASE.

WOMEN AND A DIVIDEND. WELLINGTON, April 30. A racecourse betting transaction, in which two women, weic concerned, was reviewed in the "Magistrate's Ociirt yesterday. Flora Watson, the wife of a striker in the railway workshops at Pebuna, sued Mary Emeny, wile of Charles T. Eraney, for £2 iSs, as the balance of moneys received bv Mrs. Emeny for Mrs. Watson. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. J. m'Grath for the defendant. Mr. Wilford, in opening the case for Mrs. Watson, said that, although the claim might appear to be somewhat within the provisions of the Gaming Act, ho would be able to show that such was not the case. Mr.’M'Grath.; We have no intention of pleading the Gaming Act. If my friend can prove his case, we are prepared to pay. , Mr. Wilford then related the circumstances of the case from his client’s point of view.. Airs. Watcon, he said, went to the recent Wellington races, and took with her a post-card which she had received from her brother in Taihape. This card said: “1 like Hoatherbrao or Cheddar for the Thompson Handicap, and Patronalo for the six furlongs.’,’ “This man,” Mr. Wilford observed, “is evidently a good picker, for Cheddar won the Thompson Handicap, and Patronale won the six furlong race. Mrs. Watson, who,” her counsel said, “knows nothing about racing, met Mrs. Emeny (who is an expert) at the course.” Mrs. Emeny; “T don’t know very much about it.” Air. Wilford wont on to say "that Mesdames Watson and Emeny agreed to have os each on Heatlierbrae, but later decider! to put the maney on Cheddar. Mrs. Emeny took the money to the IQs totalisater, ’ and bought a ticket on Cheddar. The Jmrso won. and paid £l‘d lbs Od, wnich meant £6 8s 3d lor a 10s ticket. Therefore,' each woman should have got £3 4s. After getting the dividend Mrs. Emeny had refused to give half of it to Airs. Watson, asserting that Airs. Watson’s interest was in Heatlierbrae. and that Mrs. ’Watson well knew that the'ticket which- Airs. Emeny-had on Cheddar was entirely her own. That night Air. and Airs. Wafsnn went to the house of the Emony’s; and again asked her lor the half dividend. “We say,” concluded Mr. Wilford, “that she received this money for Mrs. Matson, and that she stuck to it, and won’t hand it over.” . Mrs. Watson then gave evidence. She deposed .that Airs. Emeny had taken 5s of hers, and put it on Cheddar. "When Airs. Emeny asserted that witness had not backed" Cheddar, witness had exclaimed: “Yon are the last woman 1 will ever trust on a racecourse .with my money, and 1 shall always think you owe mo half that, dividend on Cheddar.” Air. APGrath: When Mrs. Emeny refused to hand you the money you asked for, didn’t you cry? Afrs. Watson; 1 never cried. . . . I spoke to Airs. Emeny like a lady. 1 '■didn’t;say what some would have done. I said nothing—absolutely. ... , : Mr. Al'Grath : It is extremely regrettable to.bring into this "court w woman who has been a respectable resident of Wellington for years. The case is an outrageous one, .and should never have been brought. It is an improper and an immoral claim. Mrs. Emeny then gave evidence. She denied that Mrs. Watson had had a share in the Cheddar ticket. Air. Wilford: Why did you give her her five shillings back after the race? . Mrs. Emeny: Wasn’t it foolish? Air. Wilford: Why-did you give it back? , Mrs.*. lilmcny t I should nav© given her the lot, - . Air. Wilford; Yes, yon should. Airs. Emeny; Yes, I should —to have saved this trouble. Mr. Wilford; Will you swear that Tom Quinlivan (Cheddar’s trainer) went to you on the course, and told you to back Cheddar? Mrs, Emeny; No, but a very great friend of his did. His Worship; These narfies are both. I take it, sporting individuals, and,- if tbev will lake a,suggestion,.l will suggest that they .should tors a coin to see whether the plamtilf gels the whole. No matter which way the decision goes, one of the two is bound to be disappointed. Lam not prepared to state fust at present which of the two is right.