“MORALLY RESPONSIBLE.”

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8342, 31 January 1913, Page 11

“MORALLY RESPONSIBLE.”

CLAIM FOR UNPAID MONEYS

A NAPIER PUBLICAN AND RACE- ‘ * ‘ HORSES.

An interesting case bearing upon the point as to whether a man can recover from another moneys which bay 6 been advanced for the purpose of backing horses, and which have not been paid when the bets are lost, was heard by Dr, A. McArthur, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, wl ‘® n ,^ a „ 7 1 , Griffin, licensee of the Pier Hotel, M ellington, sued .Charles Jamts Kntg, licensee of the Terminus Hotel, Napiei, for £IOO and ,£?. 9s interest. Mr J J McGrath appeared, for the plaintiff, Mr T. M. Wilford tor defendant. ~ -a ~, In opening the case, Mr McGrath said that on October 28th last Griffin invested for defendant at the latter s request the sum of £SO oh Avauuce, which was on that day funning at the Trehtham meeting. 1 lamtiff also hnt, oh belialf bf King, toother £M Oh BObrikoff, who was running at the same hieetifig. Both horses lost, and as King refused to pay Gnfflh, the latter was suing for tlio £IOO. Counsel contended that plaintiff was not debarred by the Gaining Abt from recovering tho monej. The <jasc tvas jiiiroly one of Griffin seeking to recover from King actual cash paid for King at Kings request, irrespective of whether tho horses won or lost. INVESTED FOB ANOTHER. Air AlcGtath called defehdant as his first witness. ' King stated that on Obtobfer 28th list he seht a telegram to plaintiff asking ihb latter to make two ihvestmehts, bf hSO bach, oh two horses, Avihihcb tod Bbbfikoff, who ■wbfe ruhuihg at TrOrltham. Oh Many occasions previously ho Had sent such telegrams tb plaintiff; and wheii the hoi-sea won hb was always paid out punctually, the saihe as Mr Griffih was when they lost. Both horses were unsuccessful, but the £IOO had not been paid to Mr Griffin, who had asked for it. “I don’t personally owe it;” said witness, “but 1 am morally responsible for it.” Mr McGrath; What do you rnbah by that? I mean that the money was invested on another pefsbri’s behalf, aid I hive hot received it from him. Witness said Mr Griffin might not have known that the money was to be invested Par Sbihebbdy else, ah there was nothing mbhtio-ned. ih thO telegram tb that effect. Therefore it would be reasonable for plaintiff to look to Him for, the money, and he had not denied the liability. If the, other person did hot pay Up then probably He (witness) would bate' to paji it; Mr McGrath: Hare you any objection to telling the court who the person is who owes you, the money?—No. jt is Air AicLaughlih, a resident of Napier. Cohtihhing, witness Said the reason why he had not paid the money tb plaintiff was that the amount was rather large, and he wanted time to feet it. PbSsibly if the aetibh liad not been brought plaintiff mould have al.ready received Some of the. money. Hp vitas ahsdbos to pay plaihtiff. Griffih had paid him £6OO ih winnings, and he had paid plaihtiff £570 ih losses. Most of the latter was received by witriess from other people. In one or two Instances people had hbt paid iriohey to witness, to<l had had to pay the debts himself. As soon, as . Air McLaughlin paid witness the £IOO he would pay it tb plaintiff. Mr McGrath: And if McLaughlin doßsh’t pay ?—l’ll pay it.

Anxious to settle. Are you anxious to settle with Mr OHfflh Il6W?—Yes. If this case were adjourned for three months would you try to settle the matter ? —Certaihly. Mr Milford; We had belter go on.

Mr McGrath: Ohj.yWj >Ve’il go on. Further questioned by Mr McGrath, witness said that if judgment Were giteh against Him he thought he Wohld be id .a position to pay the sum. Mr Wilford: Isn’t it a fact that before this action was, taken Mr McGrath threatened to deal with you On the Liceiisihg Bench at Hawke’s Bay?— y«s. .. ....

Mr McGrath then read a letter which had been sent to. defendant in Novembet last by the firm of McGrath and Willis, pointing OUt that before bringing an action for the recovery of the moneys plaintiff proposed to jay the facts of the matter before the chairtflail and members of the Licensing Bench at Napier oh Decembr 2nd. “Our client, irho is a member of the New Zealand Licensed Victuallers’ Association,” the letter stated* “considers your coiidliet was unworthy of any licensed victualler, and deehis it his duty to hare the matter laid before both the Licensed Victuallers’ Association and the Hawke’s Bay Licensing Bench. This letter is being written to you in fairness, attd to giro you an opportunity, if you so desire, of preparing any defence yon may have to make to the charge which our client proposes to levy against you.” “Did you receive that letter?” asked Mr .McGrath. Witness: Yes.

You intend to plead the Gaining Act in this transaction?—Yes.

After a short consultation with plaintiff, Mr McGrath informed the court that Griffin elected to he non-suited, his object being that he would take the action to the Supreme Court to determine whether he could legally recover the moneys. A non-suit was accordingly entered.