ELECTION BET.

Taranaki Daily News, 31 July 1920, Page 7

ELECTION BET.

STWHTORO POLL ECHO. LIGHT ON EXTENSIVE WAGERING. "A NBST <W? STAKEHOLDERS. , » u , (From OUr Own Correspondent.) ■ Stratford, Last Night,*. Many; interesting- side-rights on the bitterness of rtso campaign for the. Btr*tf*rd seat at the General Election as Beoenrber 17>_ 1919, wore revealed in a particularly'.interesting civil action which-wai hjMiatefore JMr. T. A..8. Bailey; .6.M,. »t?jthe ; Stratford Magis-_ trate.'a Court tojday. 33» plaintiff, was; George Morrison*, blacksmith, of Tarilgi,: ai'dte aought-tttreoover from Stanley Sharp, hairdresser, of Stratford,-the sum, bfcdffiftj; being the amount ;of a bet qn tne election which the, plaintiff had placed with tb*-, defendant as stake-' bolder. .'■ hJ '•■ iji . Mr: A. Coleman appeared for. the Jlaintiff and Mr. L. M. Moss for the rfendant. ■__ ~TaT»tatemei|Cof claim set out: ; (It) That'olfcW auout'Deeember % : 1019, tteftei«*!ff .gavato the defend-, ,i*Mtztiiemw{S>t~£W upon th# terms, viand condition} ;jbha4> the defendant was »<a<*ft4i?hi Uje.jisaid. suni+of money as afcjpi&oldair ,'&> .ha, wajgjrea against.;* nun as rt #taJtth©Mer, bother, pewon's. to abide, * theie|ttfc tf.jjje-..p01l lor the election ..'of a member of Parliament for the, "Stratford electorate, on December i^ v ' (2) That on or about December 20, - 1919, and on other subsequent occasions,'the plaintiff instructed the defendant not to "pay over the said ' - sum of £SO until after plaintiff's- re- • - turn from Auckland, when the plaintiff would instruct the defendant fur- . ther in the matter, and the defendant accordingly promised not to pay over the money. t (S) That defendant did not observe or carry out the instructions of the plauftiff, but in defiance and disregard of the same, paid" over the sum of £SO to tHe other person or persons. . i - j>iainWff,~Tfierefoife,'' "claimed th'fi return of the said sum of £so,.together votu Merest at 6 per cent. Japm May, SO, 1920, to the date of the judgment. ' Mr. Moss intimated.tnalHatSfoe close of plaintiff's case he proposed.:*? more Jor a non-rart- . - >.- j3HE P£i^raiPF'S J GaßE,, Mr. Coleman, in outlining the plaintiff's case, said that a little before the general election on December $,:1918) a considerable amount of interest was engendered and party, feelings rose high. Unfortunately, it ! seemed that' a consul- 1 erabie amount of wagering took place between the partisans and certain people were'acting in-ffie position of stakenolders. Early in December the plaintiff was approached by defendant and asked if he would cover some money which Sharp had had placid with him. Sharp was a liberal sympathiser and was holding' Liberal money; which he wished the plaintiff to cover as a Reformer. Plaintiff agreed to the bet and forwarded Mr. Sharp a cheque for £SO, by poet. The terms of the contract were VcrfkL Counsel then detailed the circumstances of the bet according to the evidence' he to bring, and during his remarks stated that at the time of the general election Stratford was a perfect nest of stakeholders. Mr. Coleman' then called- evidence. He plaintiff, George Morrison, a blacksmith; residing at Tariki, said that on or about December 3 he had a ring on the telephone from Sharp, who said be had a sum of money amounting to] '£{2oo, and asked plaintiff if he would] cover any of is.. Sharp mentioned that the money was to back Masters. Plain; J tiff repn>d'ihat he would take £SO .of ] the amount,.and said he would post a] cheque,-*! ■. the morning, which he did: plaintiff), came. up. to Stratford on the Saturday afternoon following the conversation on the telephone. He saw Sharp and asked him if the bet was | fixed- up alright. Sharp replied that it was alright, stating that the money wasj In an envelope in a safe in the bank. A few days later, plaintiff made another bet undet slightly different con-J ditions, but Sharp was still the stakebolder. Mr. Sharp mentioned the names \ of the people putting up.the money on] the otteT side. Plaintiff did not again, apeak to Sharp about the bet until the Saurday after the election, when he met him in the street. He said: "Mr. j Bharp, do not pay out on those bets. There hive been certain irregularities in connection with this election, and there ie a "probability of an appeal being made. You know in any Supreme Court action there is a right of appeal within 28 days." Sharp, replied that jthis was so, and asked why plaintiff did Hot wish to pay out. Plaintiff replied j that he was in a position to know. He I Was a member of Mr. Hine's election committee, and used to attend the central committee meetings in Stratford. •nd the question of the disqualified voters had been discussed, apart from the picture entertainment on the night before the election. THE BETS PAID. After the discussion, Sharp told him In plain words that fce would not pay oat until plaintiff came back from AuckUnd, where he contemplated going at that |bne. Sharp added that he would not pay out except in the presence of both parties. Plaintiff replied that there wag no harm in holding the money as ike other gentlemen who were interested Were not hard up, and in need of the money "even though they be the winBen/ Plaintiff saw Sharp a few days later, and again fold him not to pay the money out, And he again said it was alright. Plaintiff, then went to Auckland and was away about a month. On coming back to Stratford he heard ttat his stake had been paid over. On learning that he went and saw Sharp, end said, '"What about those bets Mr. Sharp? I hear you have paid them <mtt* Sharp said: "Yes, I have." Plaintiff asked why he had paid them out in the face of his promise not to do so until plaintiff came back from Auckland, and Sharp said the other gentlemen interested came twice and demanded the money, and as all other stakeholders had paid out fce had decided to do the same. Plaintiff .replied that Sharp was quite wrong, and named another stakeholder who,he said, had not paid out his trvst money. Sharp said he had, and plaintiff said: bis private bets, and not those he is holding in a position of trust." Sharp replied: "That, may be BO." Plaintiff asked where he came in no* the money was paid out, and Sharp replied! "Those gentlemen are sports, and should Mr. Hme'r petition succeed Jhey will pay the money back or put it

up again." Sharp started to argue, end plaintiff got angry: and left the shop. Plaintiff considered Sharp's action vary unsportsmanlike. The same day, witness met Sharp again in the street, and asked about tho other people. Sharp asked him to go with, wife and 4 he jrould speak to them, Plaintiff did not do this, stating that he would see them himself. A few minutes afterwards plaintiff met one of the gentlemen referred to, and saM: "What about those betsf I hear you have collected." He admitted he had collected, and.in the course of the argument, plaintiff said: "Do you think it a fair thing." The other,man replied: "The official recount declared our man .elected, and we have got the money. It is outs,, and we are going to keep it." Plaintiff replied: "This IB the, sports Sharp represented to me. Should the petitioa succeed : da you still claim the] money i" He saidi,'"Yes." Siwfti then he. lumL asked Sharp for the money on more,than one occasion, and his'solicitors Kid written demand* ing it several times. Some tinie hefore the .election, defendant met two of the other, gentlemen wnp were] interested In thebet,.and they, said that he (phunt'ff) was not the man they were anxious to .get at, and he Jould withdraw if he wished. Plaintiff replied that he did not wish to withdraw, and accepted, a further bet of £l5O, making £2OO in all.-.,. .. ,- „.. ..„ - . .-.-, . i i - ANOTHER, BET. Cross-examined by Mr. Mos«, plaintiff said he'gave the ,'to Sharp as stake-holder because he believed that Sharp wis on the Reform side. The betting was started by Sharp ringing him up. : He denied that rang up Sharp .first. Hfiiid not know that he had &e reputation of being the first man in" Stratford to start betting on ,the election. A bet with Mr. McDonald was suggested at the time of the show, but it was not made until after the other bet with Sharp. He was pretty confident of the success of bis candidate. He offered to take £SO. Mr. Mose: Is it a fact that you were asking several men in town to take up to £3OO or £4OO. Plaintiff: No, I cannot say that I actually offered to take those bets. Plaintiff objected to stating the terms of the £l5O bet. He said that the terms of the £SO bet were just that Mr. Masters should beat Mr. Hine. The terms with the £l5O bet were different. Mr- Moss put in the agreement in connection with the £l5O bet, plaintiff] admitting that it contained his signa-j ture. \ v/Ihe agreement stated: "I, George 1 iforrison, bet Harold Masters the sum (Of /£l5O that Hine will beat Mas-j ters at, the election on December 17, j . PJfrintiff said that the terms of the bet of., £SO were different. He had no, objection to the cashing by Sharp of the; cheque for £SO. On December 20 plaintiff told Sharp that he was not to pay" /itffa i because he knew there was a possibility ■of a" protest on account of the disqualified voters who had voted for Mr. Wasters and on account of the picture entertainment. Mr. Moss: Didn't the fact that there were only- about 00 votes between them have some weight with you? Plaintiff: No, that was not the case. Mr. Moss: Did not all the other stakeholdersihold the money until the 24th, the same, as Mr. Sharp did? Plaintiff: No that was not the case. Mr. Moss: Well, I can tell you that the man you mentioned this morning paid bis own bets like an honorable man' and returned the other money to the principals. He did not attempt to go back on his bets. ; Plaintiff said he did not Tecollect any communication passing between him and Sharp while he was at Auckland, All be recollected was that Sharp had an' old crock- of a racehorse which he (plaintiff) had been fool enough to givej a pound to Sharp to back it with. Sharp put the money on. He did not think it would have been more prudent to' have withdrawn the stake from Sharp. If Sharp had been a sportsman he would have said, "There's the money; the bet is off." He did not demand the money back because if the petition had gone in favor of Hine the money should have been his. He was not suspicious of Sharp; he took his word as a man. Sharp had said that the other men had come twice and demanded the money from him. There was no one present when the conversations with Sharp took place. ABOUT AN AGREEMENT. Mr. Moss: Why didn't you get in writing an agreement in regard to the bet? Plaintiff: Because the cheque had been sent by post and had been cashed and the money was in the safe. He left it at that. He believed that if Hine finally won, the men would pay over the money. Plaintiff refused to state how much, money he had on altogether with Sharp. He admitted there was a further bet of £l5O. He would deny that some of the money put on with Sharp was not his own. Mr. Mosb: Did you get a cheque for £SO from Mr. Edgar Hine? Plaintiff: I refuse to discuss that. He did not bring it earlier because he thought it might prejudice the candidate's chances at the by-election. (Laughter). He did not think that either the recount or the petition would win his bet. As far as he knew he was the only man who had sued to recover a bet on the election. He may have stated to persons that the case would decide many others He was the real plaintiff in the case and was suing to recover his own money. Re-examined by Mr. Coleman, plaintiff said that in respect of the bet o f £l5O with Harold Masterß, Sharp had drawn up an agreement which plaintiff said would not do as it did not provide for counting absent votes. He thought that agreement was destroyed, but Sharp still apparently retained it. A new agreement was drawn up which plaintiff signed. The other man was not there at the time he signed it. He knew he should have seen that it was destroyed. The second agreement made it clear that the winner was to be the one who had backed the man elected as member for Stratford.

POLITICAL BARBERS. William Home Hargreaves Young, farmer and auctioneer, residing at Stratford, said he had some-.dealings with Sharp in regard to the £SO bet. The week previous to the election he placed tome money with Sharp as stakeholder for the coming election of Hine v. Masters. The election took place the tollowing Wednesday, and witness, as a supporter of Mr. Hine and a committeeman, went to Sharp and said: "Don't pay over the money; there will be an official recount." Witness was a daily customer of Sharp's. Mr. Coleman: Are you still a customer? Witness: Yes. I Mr. Coleman: I may say that m this

town there is a Reform hairdresser and a Liberal hairdresser. Witness asked Sharp not to pay over his bet, and Sharp replied: "Dutv't bo afraid of your money, Bill! J"11 not pay over your bet. I've promised George Morrison, who has gone to AuckVvnd, that I won't pay out the bets until he comes back." On the morning of the 24th., the figures of the official count appeared in the Daily News. Witness was in Sharp's shop that morning, and as he entered he heard customers saying that Sharp had paid over. Later, witness asked Sharp if'he had paid over, and Sharp said yes. Witness reminded Sharp 1 that he had promised not to pay over, and that he had stated that he promised George Morrison not to pay over. Witness was not aware of the details of any of the ottier nets. He was only concerned with his own bet. Witness was aware that the official declaration had not been given by Mr. Prircell at that time. It was given by Mr. Purcell about mid-day. Witness had published a statement that, on acjedunt of the election irregularities, there I wduld be further proceedings. He had | that put in as an intimation to stakeholders not to pay over the money. He j asked Sharp why he had paid out the | money before the official declaration, and Sharp replied that the men had been -worrying the life out of him, and he had paid over 1 . I' "ILLEGAL PRACTICES." Witness admitted that he was one of the petitioners, and had succeeded in upsetting the election on the grounds of illegal practices, and that he had committed illegal practices himself by betting on the election. (Laughter). Thomas Purcell, returning officer for the Stratford electorate, said he put up 'the declaration of the poll outside the Stratford Courthouse on the evening of December 23, a little after 8 p.m. Plaintiff (re-called) said he approached Mr. Hansby, hairdresser, in connection with the case, and asked ijinsby if he had overheard what had taken place between himself (plaintiff) ' and Sharp. Hansby said he had. At a later time, he approached Hansby and told him that he intended calling him as a witness, and Hansby said he didn't want to be mixed up in it, and if he were called he would go into the witness bos and say he knew nothing about the matter. This concluded the evidence for the plaintiff. THE DEPEKCE. Sir. Moss, in raising a non-suit point, "said that the defence had a meritorious case, and without any defence he could leave the case to be decided on its merits'. I Defendant denied that he, had promised not to pay out the money until the plaintiff's return from Auckland, but admitted that the plaintiff told him not to pay out the money until the official declaration. They would admit that the money was paid out on December 24th, after the official declaration by Mr. Purcell. They would say that the action of the plaintiff was not a meritorious one. He would say that very few cases' in regard to wagering ever came before the Court in New Zealand. When a man entered into a bet and lost it, he entered into a debt of honor, and every honorable man paid that debt. The defence would rely upon Section C 9 and 70 of the Gaming Act, which laid it down that such a bet was irrecoverable, unless the plaintiff had revoked Sharp's authority before it was paid over. Counsel submitted that according to the New Zealand and the English _ law, the plaintiff must fail. There was an alternative defence, which was that the contract was illegal under the provisions of the Legislature Act. His Worship: Is it illegal? Mr. Moss: The'bet is illegal, and the money cannot be recovered. His Worship: Your contention amounts to this, Mr. Moss: That if you and I place money with a stakeholder neither of us could get it back. Mr. Moss: That is the position. The New Zealand law lays it down that no money can be recovered which is won, lost, or staked. Those words are in the Act, and must mean something I sub- ' mit they were put in the Act for a purI pose. Mr. Moss said the inclusion of the word "staked" very greatly altered the position of the matter. The point was only raised once in New Zealand—in a Magistrate's Court case in Wellington—but he could not find any report on it. As far as he knew the matter had never been dealt with in the Supreme Court. Mr. Coleman said he wished to discuss the law points in his final address. Mr. Moss said that he was prepared to Tely for his case on the points of law. He had a defence on the merits of the case, but he would rely on the non-suit point. The Magistrate ruled that Mr. Moss had raised a non-suit point, which should be discussed before Mr. Moss decided whether he would call evidence or not. DECISION RESERVED. Mr. Coleman said there was no question that the transaction was illegal within the meaning of the Legislature Act. Counsel quoted English cases as showing that it was legal to recover a stake from a stakeholder. Counsel submitted that the plaintiff was seeking to recover money from a stakeholder which had not been used for the purposes which the defendant had been instructed to use it. He maintained that the stakeholder could be sued for the recovery of the amount deposited by one of the depositors if he did not carry out the instructions given to him. Mr. Coleman after quoting a number of authorities contended that Mr. Morrison was not precluded from recovering the amount of his bet through Section 70 of the Gaming Act. Mr. Moss said that if Mr. Coleman's contentions were sound, it appeared as though a line and a half had been inserted in the New Zealand Act wVch were inoperative. The Magistrate asked if Mr. Moss proposed to stand or fall on the legal points. Mr. Moss said he would reply upon his non-suit point, and would not call evidence. The Magistrate agreed to all#v plaintiff's counsel time to consider whether he would accept .decision on the non-?uit point as final judgment in the case, thus giving either side the right of appeal. His Worship intimated that he would give his decision on next sitting day, August l'3th.