IMPORTANT SPORTING CASE.

Kumara Times, Issue 1055, 17 February 1880, Page 4

IMPORTANT SPORTING CASE.

TRIMBLE Y. HILL, This was an appeal to the Judical Committee of the English Privy Council from a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales of Deo. 13, 1877. The suit in question was instituted by the applicant, Mr Joseph Trimble, against the respondent, Mr George Hill, jun., to recover L2OO in the following circumstances : On April 4, 1877, Mr Trimble and aMr Glenlster entered into an agreement in writing in these terms Mr Glenister agrees to run Gaffer Grey against Mr Trimble’s Beacon for the sum of LSOO a side, L2OO of which is deposited in the bands of George Hill, which said depositmoney will be_ forfeited unless the whole of the stake is made good on Monday evening the 10th day of April, between the hours of eight and ten. The race to take place on Tuesday, the 11th day of April, between the hours of three and four p.m. The race to be the same weights and same distance and same hurdles as they met in the A. J. 0, Hurdle Race.” On the same day Trimble and Glenister paid to the respondent, Hill, as a deposit upon that agreement, L2OO, Afterwards, but some time before the race. Trimble, owing to his wife’s death, applied to Glenister to abandon or postpone the race, which he declined to do. Subsequently Glenister requested Trimble to adjourn the race for a day, to which he assented; but on April 9, 1877, two days before the race was fixed to be run, Trimble wrote a letter to Glenister and to Hill, the respondent declaring the match, “Beacon v. Gaffer Grey,” off, and requesting the return of the L2OO deposited. These were the facts of the case. The| Judge of the Metropolitan and Coast District Court at Sydney, before whom the case originally came, nonsuited the appellant, Mr Trimble, on the ground that the money sought to be recovered had been contributed towards a sum to be paid to the winner ot a lawful game, within the meaning of the Colonial Act, which is identical with that of the Bth and 9th' Yict., cap. 108, sec. 18—viz., “ all contracts or agreements, whether by parole or in writing by way of gaming or wagering, shall be null and void, and no suit shall be (brought or maintained in any Court of Law or Equity for recovering any sum of money or valuable thing alleged to be won upon any wager or which shall have been deposited in the hands of any person to abide the event on which any wager shall have been made, provided always that this enactment shall not be deemed to apply to any subscription or contribution or agreement to subscribe or contribute for or towards any plate, price, or sum of money to be awarded to the winner or winners of any lawful game, sport, pastime, or exercise. Upon that decision, the appellant, Mr Trimble, appealed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The case was argued on Dec. 12 and J 3, 1877. The Chief Justice (Sir James Martfh) held that the case of “ Diggle v. Higgs” (1, “Law Reports,” Exchequer, page 423) was decisive as to the illegality of wagers of all kinds, and as a result that no action at'law or suits in equity could be maintained upon illegal contracts such as these. He therefore allowed the plaintiff’s appeal. The two other judges dissented from the the Chief Justice’s ruling, and affirmed the decision of the Court below. Their lordships, at the close of the argument, reversed the decision of the majority of the judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and allowed the appeal, with costs.