CLAIM FOR £1000 IN COMMISSION BETTING CASE

Grey River Argus, 21 September 1948, Page 3

CLAIM FOR £1000 IN COMMISSION BETTING CASE

WELLINGTON, Sept. 20. Evidence of moneys having been placed on a commission basis in respect of bets on racehorses was given in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr Justice' Cornish, when a claim was brought by Robert Arthur Drury, an agent, of Napier, for £lOBB 10s, against Andrew Dick Reid Duncan, a publican, of Wellington, being the amount of a cheque delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff and which was “referred to drawer.”

The plaintiff, in evidence, produced two accounts, dated December 6 and December 12, 1947, for betting transaction between him and the defendant. The balance in the latter account showed a credit of £lOBB 10s in witness’s favour.

His Honour: You described yourself as an agent for whom? Witness: My profession has been placing bets. His Honour: That is a calling, not a profession. Witness: On a commission basis.

His Honour: You say you placed bets with the defendant?

Witness. Yes. During that Saturday I rang him up to place with him bets as outlined in my accounts. The details of several of the bets were provided.

Witness added that his commission for bets placed with the defendant was 7i per- cent. COUNSEL AND JUDGE

At a later stage of the proceedings, counsel for the defendant, Mr R. E. Harding, left the court-room. His action followed an exchange between counsel and the Judge. In respect of one bet of £lOO, His Honour asked whether witness had authorised the defendant to risk that amount 'on behalf of a client of witness.

The reply was that Duncan might have either “laid off” the amount or “fielded” it. The £!QgB 10s had included £620 worth of bets which Duncan, ringing from the back of the Otaki racecourse, had placed with witness in December, the horses concerned having lost. During cross-examination, the plaintiff said a cheque for £lOBB 10s was made out by the defendant on December 16, dated December 19. The plaintiff agreed, by special arrangement, not to pi’esent the cheque for two months. He lodged the cheque in Napier on February 24, 1948. A writ against Duncan for the recovery of the amount, which plaintiff considered a twb-months loan, was issued. Counsel for the defendant at this stage moved for a non-suit on the ground that on September 25 there was no cause of action as the bank's official notification of the “refer to drawer” was dated March 3. PAYMENT OF CHEQUE Drury, in evidence, said he knew on February 24 that the cheque would not be met. To Mr Harding, witness said he had the cheque dated December 19 because the defendant might have been able to “repay the, loan” before the two months was up. Duncan had told him that he was only temporarily embarrassed. Witness added that, although the arrangement was that he should not press for payment until February 16. he had seen Duncan before then in Wellington, because he had heard bad reports about his financial position. Part of the reason for depositing the cheque with the bank ahead of the date of lodgement was that “in his business” it. did not pay to have too much money about the house. Also, there was a possibility that Duncan might Lell him before February 16 that he could meet the cheque, in which case the plaintiff had only to ring his bank to have them pay on the cheque. Mr Harding asked witness to be more specific about the nature of his business. That made it undesirable to have sums of money about the house. Then witness had explained his activities as an agent, and hesitated on a point. Mr Harding smiled at him and said: “Oh well, you needn’t say anything further about that. I don’t wish to embarrass you.”

JUDGE AND LAWYER DISAGREE His Honour asked Mr Harding how he could embarrass witness. Did he mean? Was he conniving at, or at least giving his blessing, to the possibility of witness being a bookmaker and, therefore, liable to prosecution? Mr Harding said that he had not intended to do so, nor would b p countenance such a thing. His Honour asked just what Mr Harding had meant then by his, “beaming smile,” with an assurance that he had no wish to embarrass witness. , “I’m not going to sit here and have a lawyer conniving at suppressing evidence about bookmaking,’ said His Honour. “Is that your attitude, or is it not, Mr Harding?” Mr Harding: ‘‘No sir. I. did not wish to convey that. As Mr Harding proceeded to expatiate on his' attitude, His Honour asked: “Will you please go on with your next question to the witness.” Mr Harding continued to explain his attitude, and His Honour interposed that he should put his next question. “If Your Honour will not allow me to proceed, I shall leave the case to my junior,” said Mr Harding. He then'left the Courtroom.

Mr T. G. Taylor, who was appearing with Mr Harding for defendant, then said that, owing to his absence for a while from the courtroom, he was at some disadvantage. His Honour adjourned the hearing until the afternoon to give counsel an opportunity to acquaint himself with all that had gone on during his absence.