RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 584, 23 November 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Eriday, Nov. 19. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E. M.) A DEBT OP HONOR.

Thomas J. Jones, of the Orawaiti Hotel, was sued by James Johnston, butcher, Westport, for £ls, an amount which had been deposited in his hands. The defence was that tho amount had been so deposited as stakes in a bet made between the complainant and Mr Thomas Dewdney, butcher, Caledonian Terrace, aud that the bet bad been decided in Mr Dewdney's favor. The complainant's contention was that, when the alleged bet or written agreement was made, ho was the worse of liquor, and that advantage had been taken of him by Dewdney, who must have known that he was betting on a " dead certainty." He considered, in fact, that it was'nothing short of a swindle, for betting on a "dead cer ainty " he considered to be no bet, and, if ever a bet was made on a " dead certainty" this was. Had it not been, on Mr Dewdney's part, a " dead certainty," he would not have refused to pay a " debt of honor." And, for his own part, he would have signed anything at the time. The defendant (Mr Jones) stated the circumstances under which the bet had arisen. Mr Dewdney, Mr. E. M'Farlane, and the complainant met at his hotel, and at the counter threw " Xankee grab " for drinks and some money. Mr M'Farlane left after winning a pound. Johnston was vexed, spoke about the capital he could command, and bet Dewdney that he (Dewdney) .had not £SOO in the world. Johnston deposited £ls on the counter, and left it there for about a quarter of an hour, repeating his offer to bet. Dewdney declined to make any bet until he was forced into it. Ultimately he asked him (Jones) for £2O, for which he gave a cheque, and staked the money, the bet being that a cheque of Dewdney's for £SOO would be cashed at the "Bank at the hour of opening on the following morning; it being then after bank hours. Dewdney wrote out a cheque for the amount, to be cashed by him (Mr Jones.) Dewdney offered to be locked up all night in one of the rooms of the hotel, so that there might be no collusion with the Bank. Shortly after tea next day, in company with Mi- Limbrick, ho went to the Bank of New Zealand, and the cheque was presented and met. He received five rolls of bank notes, one of which he counted, and it contained £IOO. He deposited the money again in Mr Dewdney's name. He received notice from Johnston not to pay over the stakes. When the bet was made, he considered Johuston was sufficiently sober to know what he was about.

Cross-examined by Johnston, Jones said he rememembered Dewdney asking him (Johnston) for a share in his shop. He said he considered his judgment equal to a share. He did not think Johnston had thirty drinks altogether. Ho had a pound to pay next day, but that was for several rounds—about six drinks each. He certainly thought Johnston had "got in for it in rncst at Yankee grab." Johnston said he had more in his books in the Duller as outlying capital than Dewdney had in the world. Dewdney replied that he had lent more money during tho fast two months than Johnston was worth.

_ Thomas Dewdney: (after stating the circumstances): Johnston was very pressing in the matter. He threw the money clown, and said ho would have the bet. I said I would not bet, and it was over kilf-an-hour before I asked Jones for the £2O. Johriston

said I was d—d well stumped—that the old woman had pretty nearly weeded mo out; and you can understand what he meant by that, your Worship. (To Johnston) I will not swear you said so, but I have a very respectable witness to whom you said so. You never mentioned the name of Mrs Anderson. I did not know the bet was a dead certainty—either to a pound or ten pounds. I calculated that I was correct. John Leslie, agent for the Bank of New Zealand, proved that the cheque had been met; and Bengamin Oakes corroborated the occurrences at the Orawaiti Hotel. Mr Johnston addz-essed the Court on his own behalf. His contention was that he had been entrapped into belting by Mr Dewdney, and that a bet on a " dead certainty " was no bet. He was " dead certain " as to that. The Magistrate adjourned his decision in the case until yesterday, when he gave judgment for the defendant Jones. He said that, if the law in this country had been the same as that at present existing in England, the plaintiff could have recovered the money, not because there were any particular circumstances to entitle him to it, but because any betting contract was null and void altogether. But the law of New Zealand was not the same. The English statute was not iu force in this Colony. Consequently, unless the plaintiff could show that there was something particular to entitle him to do so, he could not recover. He had attempted to do so—to make out two circumstances —that he was at the time under the influence of liquor, and secondly that the bet was a certainty. He did not think that either of these allegations would hold good. He did not think the evidence showed that the plaintiff was so much under the iulluence of liquor that he could not make a contract. With regard to the other statement, there was not much in that. No doubt, a certain knowledge of the fact by any person betting would invalidate a bet, but it must be only what the other party could not suspect he did not know. In this instance, that was not the case. If the plaintiff chose to make a bet as to the amount in a Bank, to the credit of another, ho must know that the party with whom he bets was, in all probability, aware of the amount. Tf Mr Dewdney had some underhand knowledge of any kind, the bet might have been invalid, but in the presentcase Mr Dewdney had no knowledge except what Mr Johnston would have suspected he might have had. Independently of that there was no evidence of knowledge. It was not the amount of money in the Bank, but the amount of credit a man might have, and that was a conjectural matter. Therefore the verdict must be for the defendant.