A REPUDIATED BET

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 234, 11 February 1911, Page 8

A REPUDIATED BET

APPEAL COURT DECISION. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. Judgment was given to-day by Mr. Justice Chapman in the appeal case of Victor McDuff (appellant) v. Alfred Hammond (respondent). This was a case stated on appeal from conviction for larceny of £1 by Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M. There were two appeals, each relating to a separate sum of £l. The appellant, under the assumed name oi "Bob Watson," obtained a license, under which he carried on his calling as a bookmaker at a race meeting at Trentham on October 22nd last! He attracted a section of the public by offering even money against Danube for the Champion Plate. Many people, including James Marshall and James North, paid him each £1 on the terms that if Danube won they were each to receive £2 on presenting their tickets. Danube won the race, and the holders of winning tickets presented them, claiming £2 each. The appellant informed them that he could only pay them their money back. Some elected to take this, and were paid. James North demanded thu refund of the £ 1 paid by him, but this was refused. "The case," said His Honor, "is a simple case of dishonest repudiation or a bet, and there is nothing stated which, can make it anything else. If there has been a finding by the magistrate that the whole transaction was a < planned trick to get hold of £l, and this finding had been supported by the general facts of the case, the result might have beeni different. There is no such finding. On the contrary, the real basis of the finding of dishonesty is the act of appellant in getting rid of his money after the betting had closed, and again after the race was run, and this finding is supported by the facts. So far as the question of law arose, they were the same as those which arise here, and His Honor's opinion appears to coincide with mine. In each case the appeal is allowed without costs."