Patea R.M. Court.

Patea Mail, 19 March 1881, Page 3

Patea R.M. Court.

Fiuoav, before Mr C, A. Wray, R.M. A GAMBLING TRANSACTION. J. Chadwick v. Wilfred Jackson was a claim to recover T5, value of a dishonored cheque. Mr Ilarnerton appeared for defendant, and objected that the cheque being given in a gambling transaction, (he amount was not recoverable. Plaintiff stated that at Bull-town be and two others joined in a bet with defendant on a question whether a certain horse ran two years previous!}’. Defendant lost, and the stake was paid over, including a cheque for £5. The (hn?c settled up, and plaintiff had ultimate possession of the cheque. He paid it away ;it was dishonored ; and ho now sued to recover £5. Some disagreement had followed the settling up, and defendant had then said, in anger, ho would stop the cheque.

Mr Hamcrtou said this was notice given, and plaintiff could not recover. Mr H. F. Christie was called by plaintiff, and said a cheque could be stopped at any time, for any reason. The Magistrate said the law appeared to be that this cheque would not be absolutely void, except between the original parlies. The cheque appeared to have been paid as part of a debt due to three persons, and the cheque w r as not made payable to one in particular. Plaintiff was entitled to recover, though in point of law it might be open to question, if it were thought necessary to carry the action farther. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs.