BETTING TRANSACTION.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 August 1920, Page 154

BETTING TRANSACTION.

A WINNING DOUBLE. Napier, July 27. A winning ''double" on the New Zealand Cup caused an interesting action at the Napier Magistrate's Court when Alfred Cronin (Mr Rogers) proceeded against Major Porter (Mr Lusk),< of Wellington, for £95. Mr Rogers, for plaintiff, said the claim was in respect of a betting transaction. The plaintiff backed a "double" at 100 to 1. Defendant said he thought he fould fix up wjth a bookmaker, and went away. He came back and plaintiff paid him £5, agreeing to give him £lO for his trouble of the double won. The double won, and a few days after the •race, defendant paid plaintiff £4OO, saying he would give him the £IOO later, as he had been hard hit at the "laces. They had not been able to get the money. Alfred Cronin, motor garage proprietor, of Napier, detailed the circumstances, and said he promised to give defendant £lO if the double won. Mr Lusk said the whdle point of )Bsue was that defendant said he was to get £IOO if the double won. Plaintiff further said that the double was Inah-Vagabond at the New Zealand Cup meeting. Defendant also backed a double, but plaintiff had nothing io do witli that. Mr Lusk: This is not your first betting transaction, Mr Cronin? —No. You were not exactly an innocent abroad in the deal? —No. If this double had lost, was defendant to get anything?— No. Isn't it frequent for one man to "save" with another on bets?—lt happens sometimes. Defendant denied that he arranged to "save" £lO with plaintiff, and afterwards arranged to "save" £IOO with him. Mr Lusk characterised the case as "one of these unholy cases which occasionally come before the court." He did not propose to plead that the transaction came under the Gaming Act, as plaintiff Sad not had direct dealing with the bookmaker. He read defendant's evidence, taken in Wellington. Tn it defendant said that both he and plaintiff backed doubles, and each agreed to give the other £IOO of he won. The magistrate said defendant had handed £4OO to plaintiff, and returned £lO5. The onus of proof in every case was on the plaintiff, but In this case plaintiff was entitled to his money, and the burden was on defendant to prove why lie should retain £IOO of it. TTe thought plaintiff was entitled to judgment. •Judgment was accordingly entered for , plaintiff for £66 and costs £9 2s.