DEBT OF HONOR

Tuapeka Times, Volume IX, Issue 549, 22 March 1876, Page 4

DEBT OF HONOR

The following ease was hwurd at the Resident Magistrate Court, Danedin, on the 16th : inst. :— ' ' ' : " -7 Sibbald v. LoKan.-Claim L 5 10i, ; for cash lent Mr^E. Cook fippenred for plaintiff ; Mr A. Bathrtte for defendant. --In opening tbe case Jfr Cook s»id it was one that should not hare come before the Court Jbeing » matter of •honor ' between two $entttmen7-the claim J w*i connected with horte-radngr.— Thoma* Sibbald, plaintiff, said he had. associated with defendant for some time. In March, 1874, defendant received for witness the sum of 30b from » Mr T. G. John^t n. Defendant had taken a b t of L 3 to LI against Medora f r the steeplechase at the race meet ng, and won it. Witness was, halves witn defendant in all the bets they made on the meeting. In another | race witne»^ba-Jc«d Calumny with Mr Drake at L 9 to L 3, aad loat it, so he charged defendant with 30s He had a timilar b t with Mr J. R. Mackenzie, but only took l 3 to' hi. Another wager^. he . made , was taking., lA to L 2 f»om Mr »>. P-tejs about some -rae*. -Witness- sever vl times asked defendant for the money, but defendant said witness should lnae-in as h< was tie better off of the two. ~ Later on the defendant said he would pay it some day, but he had never done so. ; Withe? s lost LlO on those iaces altogether. His Worship : I thought bookmakers al>va>B mide their books so as to win.— Mr Cook: Pla ntiff is not a professional bookmaker, like Mr Drake. Cross examined : The agreement to go halves was made on the evening b -for ■ the races, and all the wagere mentioned were. ; T*de alter this. — H. Cros-ley, felbnoDger, naid he saw the parties frequently on the racecourse during the meeting, and Logan told him' he was partners with Sibbald in their bets.! Witness saw them consulting "together about! sweeps got up on the course. Witness! went halves with Logan ia a bet about' Medora.— His Worship said tbat as defendant; pleaded that all the details of the partnership ' did not appear in the account plaintiff would be non«uited. The Court coult not inquire into, the details of »ny paitnerehip, unless tuefe. w.*s an ascertained balance, a ga ; n bet» were looked upon as debta of honor, and could not be decided in a court of law— a Cou- 1 would n ver for a moment attempt to settle disputed bets. If people w-'Uld bet, a» no doubt th y wou'd, and run the risk of the chances, they must trust to : eaoh other's honor for payment Plai 'tiff : would be nonsuited in this case, which was one that should never have been brought into Court;