MONEY LOST AT CARDS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1542, 11 September 1912, Page 2

MONEY LOST AT CARDS.

e . REMARKABLE STORY OF A LOAN. QUESTION OF "NEW CONSIDERATION." • A romarkable story of losses at cards at a house in- Lower Sloane Street, London, was related to Mr. Justice Darling in the King's Bench Division on July 31. Mr. Rose Innes, who appeared for the plaintiff in on action by Mr. Charles JToung against Mr. Louis Seclig,'' 6aid' plaintiff lent JJIO9 to Seolig for gaming purposes. Seolig had lost a certain amount of money playing cards at Youngs house; j£2s of been repaid, and the balance of X&t-.was now claimed. Plaintiff alleged that on Friday, July 26, terms of settlement were arrived at. This was disputed by Seelig, who had pleaded the Gaming Act. Mr. Samuel Duncan (for the defendant) said Young kept a gaming house. The Judge: With whom did the defendant play cards? Counsel said with persons who went to Young's house. The Judge: The debts he had incurred by playing cards in a houso which Young kept. In theso circumstances has the plaintiff any caso? Mr. Boso Innes submitted that there was good consideration in the alleged agreement to settle the case, upon which plaintiff could now recover. The Judge: What is the valuable consideration? Mr. Innes: The withdrawal of tho action. The Judgo: But tho action cannot succoed. Mr. Innes: No, but the defendant might not wish to attend the Court. The Judge: That is very muck like i blackmail. If a plaintiff brings an action on which ho knows he cannot, succeed, and then says, "If you will pay me a sum of money I won't go on with tho case, because it will be a nasty exposure for you," vulgar people would call that I blackmail. . Mr. Innes: Your Lordship has rather anticipated incorrectly what I was going to say. The Judgo: How could Ido that 1 wem to have anticipated what you were not going to say. Mr. Innes: Well, the defendant might havo business engagements elsewhere, and it might be inconvenient for him to attend tho court. Tho Judge: That is not on tho affidavit. You are asking mo to let you amend tho pleadings. I shall not do that unless you show mo somo merits supporting your application. Mr. Innes: I can put the merits in hali a dozen words. ' Tho Judgo: I should-think so! Mr. Innes: I ask that the issue of the alleged agreement to settle the oate may bs tried. Mr. Duncan said Young was tho owner of a gaming establishment, and had been fined recently for keeping a gaming establishment. Apparently he and Seelig had hod transactions extending over some considerable time, and defendant contended it would be found that he owed nothing like XBO if an account were taken between the parties. But he was not going to ask his lordship to tako an account, n: it would bring it within the scope of the case in which two burglars osked for an account. (Laughter.) Mr. Justice Darling: Two highwaymen, were they not? Mt. Duncan: Oh, yes; there is a difference! The Judge: A highwayman is sometimes a gentleman! (Laughter.) Mr. Duncan added that plaintiff waited for two hours outside Seelig's house to gel hold of him last week. The Judge: What do j-ou mean by that: Mr. Duncan: I suppose it was to screw a settlement out of hirn. Tho Judge: Suppose you say he was peacefully picketin? him. (Laughter.) Mr. Duncan: Well, ho was endeavouring peacefully to picket him—(laughter)—and threatened to get his friend, the editor of the "Looking Glass," to pillory him if he would not come to a settlement. Mr. Duncan added that he was afraid tho "peaceful picketing" would go on if the case wcro allowed to stand over for an amendment of the pleadings. His Lordship refused to allow the amendment. It was obviously an action to recover money either lost at cards or lent by the plaintiff to the defendant in order that tho defendant might play illegal Ramos in n house kept by the plaintiff. This question of "new consideration" in gaming cases was ono which had lately been abused a good deal in the Conrl.o. A number of ingenious people had set Ihemselves to discover an alleged "new consideration" which would enable a person (o recover money originally nlleced (o be due on on illegal consideration. He did not think ono should assist in this, operation, unless one was under an obligation to do so. Judgment was entered for the defendant, with costs.—"Westminster Gazette."