A MORAL DEBT

Evening Post, Volume LXXXV, Issue 26, 31 January 1913, Page 4

A MORAL DEBT

BETTING TRANSACTION ARGUED IN COURT CLAIM FOR £200. GAMING ACT PLEADED IN DEFENCE. An interesting case wap argued in the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when P. J. Griff en, licensee . of the Pier Hotel, Wellington, sued Charles J. King, licensee of the Terminus Hotel, Napier, for £102 Os 9d for moneys advanced. Mr. J. J. M'Grath appeared for plaintiff afld Mr. T. M. Wilford for- defendant. In outlining the case Mr. M'Grath stated that there would be no dispute about the facts. If his learned friend had agreed to admit the facts there wmtld have' been no reason for calling any evidence. The whole question would be whether Griffen could legally recover from King the amount of the claim. It ! was admitted that Griffen had paid these moneys for King. Mr. Wilford : No, it is not. Mr. M'Grath : I have Mr. King's letters admitting it, and defendant admitted it in the presence of Mr. Wilford. The liability has been admitted beyond a shadow of a doubt. The only plea open to the defendant was that he was pleading the Gaming Act. If the Magistrate would hold tnis to be a good defence then Mr. Griffen had made a mistake and he had to pay for it. Counsel read a letter from defendant to plaintiff, commencing : "Dear Paddy, you will probably wonder why no cheque is included in this. The parties with whom I have been doing business have asked me to wait and I have no other option but to ask you to wait. . . I Would not allow myself to be made use of. . . I express my sincere regret for the unfortunate occurrence." Again on the 12th November, counsel continued, defendant wrote" to" plaintiff, saying : "1 would " pay the money myself, but circumstances do not permit of j my 'doing so." The only defence prof«frred, counsel continued, was that the money advanced could not be recovered, owing to the provisions of the Gaming Act: On 28th October, 1912, Mr. Griffen had invested £50 at King's request on Avaunce, who was on that day running at Trentham. Later on the same day he was asked to invest a further sum of £50 on Bobrikoff on defendant's behalf in the third 'race. Both these horses lost the races in which! they competed. These two sums, amounting to £100, were paid, by Griffen for King. It was- then a question whether or not he could recover the amount. It might be claimed that thfe\transaction was one coming within section 53 of the Gaming Act, but counsel 'submitted that such was not the' case. King asked Griffen to invest £60 bn his behalf. He did not send Griffen the money, nor did Griffen agree io«pufe the money on the ttitaliea'tor. > - -Yesterday defendant admitted that the money was due, ahd now it' appeared defendant desired to know 'whether the- money was put on with the tote or the bopks. It might also be that the transaction was one coming -within" ttoe sfcope of sections 69 or 70 of , the Gaming ' Act. The plaintiff, counsel said, would show conclusively that, .within the* meaning of the Act, the amount was neither money "won/" "lost," or Staked." On flic contrary, .he would ifhow that it wa4 money paid out for King. Counsel asked, with a view to shortening tinie, whether the defence would state whether they proposed to plead the Gaming Act.- " ' l .' Mr. Wilford : That is not our onfy defence. Counsel for plaintiff then ststed that he would call defendant ad a witness. Charles James King, licensee of the Terminus Hotel, Napier, called by Mr. M'Grath, admitted that on 28th October last ho had sent a telegram to Mr. Griffen with regard to two racehorses running at Trentham. He asked Mr. Griffen to invest £50 on each of two horses —Avaunce and Bobfikoff. On previous occasions he had, sent silnilar telegrams to Mr. Griffen, and the instructions had been carried out. He admitted he had been paid out punctually when the horses won. Where horses he had backed lost ha had paid Mr. Griffen punctually in all cases prior to these. The £100 involved in the case had not been paid. He did not persdnally owe it,- but he was morally responsible for it. Mr. M'Grath : What do you mean by thai? ■ ' : Witness i That the money was invested on anothet person's behalf t and I have not received it. How much of it?— All of it. Were your previous investments for yourself ?— Partly for myself, but mostly for other people. To whom were the. proceeds sent when horses tvon? — To me. Whatever business you had to do with other people was arranged between you and them ?^~ Yes. Did Mr. Griffen know that?— He may not have done so in this particular instance. Would it be reasonable for Mr. Griffen to assume that he was doing this business for you? — I suppose it would. Would it be reasonable for the plaintiff to look to you for payment?-— 1 supJ pose it v/ould ; I have not denied the liability. Do you deny it now ?— -No ,' but I have to receive 'it from otlier people before I give it to Mr. Griffeu. And fauppose the other people do not pay, how will Mr. Griffeti gefc on?— 1 Suppose I will have to ultimately pay it myself. I Have you any desire now to pay Mr. ! Griffen?— Yes, every desire. ]?or whom did you execute this tram-act'on?-^l?or Mr. M'Laughlin. Who is he? — A resident of Napier. Why don't you pay Mr. Griffen now?— The amount! ic rather large and I< am ! surely entitled to time till I get the money. . - What would you call reasonable time? —It all depends on what the other people consider a reasonable time is. Suppose Mf. Griffen caid to you flow that he will wait three months or cix •months what would you say?~Well, I 1 have to depend on the others. . Did Mr. Griffen not offer you yesterday to wait foi' six months?— Yes. How much has Mr. Griffen paid you in the last twelve months 7—AboUt £600, and I have paid him about £570— there is little between us either way. Continuing, defendant admitted that it was a recognised practice that in cases like this, the pefsc-n who gave the instruction or made the request was the one who was looked to for payment. IE witness did not get tlie money from M'Laujijhlin he would have 'a moral obligation himself. As far as he knew M'Laughlin was a ma'nJn a fair positron. He admitted that Mr 'Griffen knew Mr. M'Laughlin and that they were friends. Witness had not told M'Laughlin that the money was owing to plaintiff. He did not think it would further matters to' have mentioned the matter to him. Mr. M|Grath : Do you intend to plead the Gaming Act as a defence to this action?-^ Witness: You have left me no alternative. ' Although you are morally responsible? — Yed. Are you anxious to settle with Mr. Orifferinow?^Ye». ~ Bup£ose this, case vvero adjourned fo& j

three months would you endeavour to settle?— Decidedly. Counsel quoted various letters written by defendant to plaintiff in which regret was expressed that the whole transaction had not been "fixed up." Mr. M'Grath : Suppose judgment is given against you are you in a position to pay?— Yes. In reply to a question by Mr. Wilford, witness said it was a fact that ho had received a letter from Messrs. M'Grathi and Willis in reference to tho matter. The letter was read as follows* Deaar Sn%— W© ar« surprised at having received 1 no reply from you to our letter of the 18th inst. Mr. Griffin called on us to-day, and, instructed Us to inform that he i« definitely determined to see this matter through. On the 30th inst. we wired at his request to .the Clerk of the Licensing Bench at Napier, to ascertain the elate of the quarterly meeting, and he replied that this was to be held on the 2nd prox. Our client considers that the whole of the moneys paid out by him on your behalf were in j perfect good faith, and that he is entitled to recover them .from you, but before bringing an action in. the Magistrate's Court here to enforce payment of this amount he proposes to lay the facts m connection with this matter before th« chairman and members of tho Licensing Bench at Napier at the quarterly meeting. Our client, who is a member of the New Zealand- Licensed Victuallers' Association, considers your conduct to be unworthy of any licensed victualler, and deems it his duty to have the matter laid before the New Zealand Licensed Victuallers' Association and the Hawkes Bay Licensing Bench. This letted is being written to you in fairness, and to give you an opportunity, if you so desire, of preparing any defence you may have to make to the charge which our client proposes to lay against you." Mr. Wilford : That id all I desire to ask. - Mr. M'Grath (to defendant) : You are quite clear you intend to plead the Gaming Act as a defence to this action ? • Defendant : Yes. Mr. M'Grath thefl asked to be allowed to have a few minutes' consultation with his client. 4fter doing so, he explained that the action between plaintiff and defendant involved a sum of over £200. He proposed to look further into the legal position, with a view to bringing a Supreme Court action, but in the meantime elected to be nonsuited, inasmuch as defendant had pleaded the Gaming Act as a defence. Mr. Wilford stated that the action had been wrongly brought, and that the Gamine Act was not the only defence available. A. nonsuit was accordingly entered, with costs against plaintiff.