REFUND OF A BET.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3525, 17 August 1926, Page 4

REFUND OF A BET.

GRAVE ALLEGATIONS MADE,

SUGGESTED RACING SWINDLE,

Arising out of a claim by 0. R. Ulander for £64 5s against James Telfar, some grave allegations were made in the Magistrate’s Court at Waitara last week, when Mr. R. H. Quilliam, on behalf of the plaintiff, asked for an adjournment of the proceedings for one month, which was opposed by the defendant’s counsel, Mr. C. H. Weston. The case arose out of an alleged swindle in connection with some betting transactions.

In asking for the adjournment, Mr. Quilliam said that the claim was being investigated by the police, but how far Telfar was involved was not known. It was desirable because of the investigations that the plaintiff should go to "Wellington at the request of the Commissioner of Police;, consequently he was not present. He was suing for money so an adjournment should involve no hardship.

“Although the application is apparently a simple matter, there are some very grave underlying issues, said Mr. Weston. A bet was made between the defendant, Telfar, and Ulander, who carried on a bookmaking business in New Plymouth, of which he made no secret. The bet involved a horse at Trentliam named Our Jack. Telfar had won and received a cheque and the matter was apparently ended. After that, the bookmakers heard that there had been a swindle in connection with the race and had jumped to the conclusion that Telfar had been connected with it. Confederates, who had engaged the telephone line from Wellington to Taranaki, as soon as they heard that Our Jack had won, telephoned the information through and people immediately made bets with the bookmakers. ’ Such a swindle would render any person concerned liable under the criminal law. The bookmakers claimed £64 ss, the amount received by the defendant on July 12. When the statement of claim was received by the defendant, dai’k insinuations were made of fraud. “DARK INSINUATIONS.” “Not dark insinuations,” said Mr. Quilliam, “express statements.” “Very well then,” said Mr. Weston, “express statements.” It was suggested, he •continued, that information had been received from postal officials. Any postal communications were strictly confidential and any official disclosing them would be involved in a very grave dereliction of duty.

Mr. Quilliam said he did not want to appear afraid of Mr. W T eston’s statements, but it was an unusual thing to go into all the particulars of the case on such an application. He contended that he had quite sufficient grounds for an application for an adjournment, which would inflict neither a hardship nor an injustice on the defendant. There was no suggestion made by them regarding the action of postal officials.

He "had been informed, continued Mr. Weston, that the bookmakers had an association in Wellington, of whose powers the public -had little knowledge. In that case they had obtained information from postal officials, in which his client was concerned. Not only had they obtained that information, but even knew what it had cost to keep the line open.

PAID BET NOT RECOVERABLE. “So much guess work,” said Mr. Quilliam. The objects of the statements, continued Mr. Weston, were merely to get them to pay. An ordinary bet once paid could not be recovered according to the Gaming Act. W hen the claim was issued by the plaintiff, he knew that legally he had no grounds for it. When lie found that it did not succeed, he made suggestions that criminal action would be taken. A bookmaker carrying on his business was himself committing a crime, so that really, when Ulander made the bet with Telfar, he was committing a crime. Even if the plaintiff had asked .for an amendment to the basis of his claim to include fraud, it would have no chance.

The ordinary layman would call such proceedings bluff, but a lawyer would call it blackmail. P. Flannagan, Ulander’s partner in business, had seen the defendant’s partner and had threatened criminal action.

Mr. Quilliam objected to Mr. Weston making what lie termed exparte statements. The Magistrate said that he presumed the defendant wanted to clear himself of any allegations. Mr. W'eston said they were using the Court to extract money from the defendant and asked for a nonsuit against the plaintiff. Continuing, he said that they knew full well that His Worship had no power to deal with the claim for debt and they were merely using blackmailing methods.

If he did not grant ail adjournment, said the Magistrate, the plaintiff might not chance a nonsuit and discontiue. On the facts given, it would appear that lie had no power to deal with the case. Mr. Weston suggested that he should show his appreciation of the position of the case by issuing a nonsuit. The Magistrate stated that lie wanted to give the plaintiff a chance to be heard and would adjourn the case for a month. —Exchange.