ELECTION BET.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 August 1920, Page IX

ELECTION BET.

THE STRATFORD CASE. PLAINTIFF TO RECOVER AMOUNT. AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT. (By Our Special Reporter.) Stratford, Last Night. • A case involving a bet on a political election, the first of its kind to be dis<llt»sed in a Court action in New Zealand, was recently before tlie Stratford Magistrate's Court, when Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., heard a claim by George Morrison to recover £SO from Stanley Sharp. The amount of the claim represented a bet on the election which Morrison had placed with Sharp are stakeholder. The plaintiff was backing Mr. Hine to win the election on 17th December, and on the first count Mr. Masters was shown to have been elected. On the following Saturday, Morrison met Sharp and told him not to pay out the bet as there had been certain irregularities and there was ft pipbability of an appeal being lodged in connection with the election. said he would not pay out till plaintiff had returned from Auckland; in fact to be safe he would not pay out except in the presence of both parties. On plaintiff's return from Auckland, however, he learned that defendant had paid over the moneys contrary to the instructions and promise. He taxed the defendant with this and the latter admitted having done so, giving as ivn excuse that the other party came to him and demanded the money. Slurp defended the action on the grounds that urder the provision of Section 70 of the Gaining Act, 1908, the money waa not recoverable. M,_ ■ THE JUDGMENT.

Judgment was given by the Msiaiitrate tc-day in favor of nlaintiff. and in the course of his judgment Mr. Bailey said: - "There are two sections in the Gaming Act which have a bearing on the present case, namely 69 and 70. Section 69 is practically a re-enactment of Section 18 of the English Gaming Act, except that the latter Act has a proviso which the Now Zealand Act does "not conjoin, but which has no bearing on the present .case. .Section 70 of our Act, which was first introduced into our Statute law in 1894, is a re-enactment of the English Gaming Act, of 1892, but there is an addition to our 'Section 70, which the defendant contends puts our Act outside the decisions of the English Act. faction 89 of our Act provides: 'All con - tracts or agreements whether by verbal or in writing by way of gaming or wagering, shall be null and void, and no action shall be' brought or maintained in any 'Court for recovering any sum of money or valuable ( thing alleged to be won on any wager, or which has been deposited in the hands of any person tip abide the event on which any wager hag been' made.' The corresponding section of the English Act has been the subject of many judicial decisions. In Hampden v. Walsh, decided in 1895, it was held that the plaintiff, having demanded from a stakeholder the amount deposited, before it was paid over, couU recover it."

After quoting other interpretations of the English law, His Worship cited two cases in which it was held that the fUming Act, 1892, does, not prevent the recovery of, money deposited to abide the event of a wager. He continued: "The law, as it now stands, is summarise! in Halsbury's Laws of England, to the effect that an action can be brought against a stakeholder by either party to recover his own stake as long as* the stakeholder hasr not executed the authority given him by paying the loser's stake to the winner. If he pays the winner after the loser has determined his authority to do so the stakeholder is liable for v the amount; and in paragraph 561 it is laid down that on the determination of the authority any money in the hands of the stakeholder ceases to be money deposited to sb!J« the event, and becomes money held to the use of the depositor. MATTER, OF INTERPRETATION.

"It is nom necessary to consider whether the additional words added to Section 70 in our Act, as mentioned earlier, materially affect the law as interpreted in England. Section 70 provides that any promise, express or implied, to pay certain moneys in respect of gaming contracts'shall be null and yoid, and 'no action' shall be brought or maintained to recover any such sum of money, if any sum of money won, Inst or staked in any betting transaction whatever.' The words 'or any suin of money won, lost or staked in any betting transaction', do not appear in the English Act. Separated from the rest of the section, the effect of the addition made to the section jn our Act is: 'No action shall be brought or maintained to recover any sum of money won, lost or staked in any betting transaction whatever.' How do these words affect the law a3 interpreted by the English Courts? We are not at present concerned with money 'won' or lost, but with money 'staked' in a betting transaction. 'Staked' is defined as a sum of money wagered or risked; that which is wagered between two parties. Money staked is in effect—to use the words of Section 69—money which has been deposited in the hands of any person to abide the event upon which any wager has been made. Comparing now* Sections 69 and 70 of our Act, we have as affects the present case, the following provisions.

"Section 69 provides: 'No action shall be brought to recover any money which has been deposited in the hands of any person to abide the event upon which any wager has been made,' and Section 70 provides: *No action shall be brought to recover any money staked in any betting transaction whatever.' It appears to me that the words 'money deposited in the hands of any person to abide the event on which any wager has been made,' and the words 'money staked in any betting transaction whatever,' have exactly the same meaning. The matter of money 'won' or lost,' in a betting transaction appears to me to be dealt with in the earlier part of Section 69, but I am not called upon to analyse that matter. The addition of the words in our Section 70 over and above these contained in the English Act, appears to be surplusage, and have no effect on the law as it stood before the 1 passing of our 1894 Act. QUESTION OF APPEAL. »

'lt is clear on the facts, that the defendant's autherity as stakeholder to pay the moneys over to the winner was determined before he paid over, and the plaintiff'# money ceased to be 'money deposited to abide the event.' or 'money staked,' and became money held to the i&h of the depositor. As the defendant

paid the plaintiff's money, t'p tho winner,after the plaintiff had determined his authority, he is therefore liable to the plaintiff for the amount. Judgment will be for the plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs." ,At the hearing, Wle case for the plaintiff was conducted by Mr. A. Coleman, find Mr. L. M. Moss defended. Mr. Hps a asked' that security for appeal be fixed. Costs and' witnesses' expenses were assessed at £3 14s, and solicitor's fee £3 10s. Security was fixed at £7O, being the amount of the claim and £2O to cover costs.