A BETTING TRANSACTION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 450, 6 February 1909, Page 3

A BETTING TRANSACTION.

In the betting case of John Kemp and Percy Maxwell Cameron v. George Owler, for the recovery of the sum - of ,£sl, decision was given by Dr M’Arthur at Wellington recently. The plaintiffs’ claim was that they had given defendant £ 1 to invest for them on the totalisator at the New Zealand Cup meeting at Christchurch. Defendant, they alleged, was charged with certain instructions whereby he should have returned the sum of Defendant, who only accounted to the plaintiffs for the sum of ,£62133, denied that he was bound down by instructions, but was to use his own discretion as to the speculation.

Commenting on the claim, his Worship stated that Section 70 of the Gaming Act, 1908, was, in his opinion, conclusive as to the plaintiff’s right of action. It provided that' “ no action shall be brought or maintained to recover any sum of money won, lost, or staked in any betting transaction whatever.” What, he remarked, could be plainer or more comprehensive? If young men, or old ones," for that matter, entrusted a companion with a sum of money to invest on the totalisator, then no instructions given to him would render him legally liable to repay any dividend he might receive. At least, that was his opinion, gathered from the provision of the Gaming Act, 1908. Those who give the money for investment must rely, not pn the law fot-re-povpry, but on the hpqour pf flip person to whom the money was given.

Judgment must be for the defendant, but no costs would be allowed.