I.O.U. FOR £l,l00

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 795, 16 October 1929, Page 11

1.0. U. FOR £l,loo

TRANSACTION ON RACECOURSE SUIT AGAINST EXECUTORS Ruffles’s dual victory at the Takapuna races in November, 1926, when the owner, Daniel Tye, a Papatoetoe slaughterman, won £2,000 in stakes and betting, was recalled in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Herdman today. Tye sued the executors of the late Frederick Seymour Tyler, John McFarlane Elliffe and Arthur C. A. Sexton for £555, for money loaned to deceased in 1926, 1927 and 1928 and for a cheque for £lO drawn by Tyler and dishonoured by the bank. The loans were alleged to have been made following Tye’s racing wins. The defendants denied all the allegations. Mr. Johnstone and Mr. TJren represented the plaintiff and Mr. Sexton appeared for the executors. Mr. Johnstone said that in view of the exceedingly loose methods by which the transaction was carried out, the executors were taking the right action in demanding proof. A meeting on the Ellerslie racecourse in 1926 led to a close friendship with the late F. S. Tyler, which continued until the latter’s death, said Daniel Tye in evidence. Tye stated that his racehorses. Ruffles and Orchils, were raced at the Takapuna meeting in November, 1926, the former winning each day, as a result of which he won £2,000. Knowing of witness’s good fortune, Tyler borrowed £l,lOO from him, giving an X.O.U. written on an envelope. Tyler was short of money for business jiurposes at the time the loan was made, and the borrower was not required to pay interest. Some months later, as no effort was made to repay the loan, witness asked for better security than the 1.0. U., as a result of which liis friend transferred £SOO in fully-paid, shares in Tylers, Ltd., and £2OO worth of shares in the Craig Plough Attachment Company, £IOO of which was to be a present to witness. The borrower also gave a new 1.0. U. for the balance of the loan, £SOO. FINANCIALLY EMBARRASSED On a trip Home Tyler arranged to buy a car for witness in England, but as he w r as financially embarrassed he was unable to complete this arrangement. Tyler, however, arranged to buy a car here for £625 for witness, as a set-off against the loan. Another loan of £SO was made to Tyler, who reduced the sum by £5; and gave an 1.0. U. for £45. A few days before Tyler’s death, a cheque for £lO, drawn by deceased, had been dishonoured by the bank. He believed that the Craig Plough Company shares were worthless, the scheme having “fallen .flat.” . Ruffles won £7OO in stakes on the two days at Takapuna, Tye stated to Mr. Sexton. The first day, he handed Tyler £3OO to back Ruffles, which paid £4, taking £1,200 off the machine. On the second day he advised Tyler to “put a hundred” on Ruffles, which returned a dividend of more tlian-£2. They had been betting on other horses throughout the day. “It was nothing for Tyler to put big sums on horses,” said witness. Mr. Sexton: Do you know a bookmaker, W. H. Cowan, of Wellington? —Yes. On December 6, Tyler received a cheque for £955 from Cowan. Don’t you think that was how Tyler obtained the greater part of £1,100? I don’t see how Tyler could have put the £3OO on with a “bookie,” considering the time 1 gave liim the money. (Proceeding.)