ELECTION BET.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 December 1920, Page 6

ELECTION BET.

THE STRATFORD CASE. APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT. DECISION RESERVED. In the Supreme Court, New Plymouth, yesterday, before His Honor Sir Bassett Edwards, the case was heard of Stanley Sharp v. George Morrison, being an appeal from the determination of Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., at Stratford, some muntlis ago. Mr. L. M. Moss appeared for appellant and Mr. Coleman for respondent. The case concerned an election bet, and the plaintiff, George Morrison, in the lower Court, was successful in securing judgment for £oo from Sharp.] The amount of the claim represented a bet on the election which Morrison had placed with Sharp as stake-holder. Morrison was backing Mr. Hine to win the election on December 17, 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 a probability of an appeal being lodged in connection with the election. Sharp replied that he would not pay out until Morrison returned from Auckland; in fact, to be safe, he would not pay out except in the presence of both parties. On returning from Auckland, however, Morrison learned that the money had been paid up. He taxed Sharp with this, and the latter admitted having done so, giving as an excuse that the other party had come to him and demanded the money and that other stake-holders were paying out. Sharp defended the action, on the ground that the money was not recoverable, under the Gaming Act, but His Worship found that defendant's authority to pay over having been determined, the money ceased to be '"money deposited", and became money held to the use of the depositor. As the money was paid over after the authority to do so had been determined, Sharp was liable to the plaintiff for the amount. For appellant Mr. Moss submitted that the Magistrate's judgment was wrong in law on three counts: (1) That section fifl of the Gaming Act barred the plaintiff's claim; (2) that if section fi!) did not do so then plaintiff's claim was barred by the words of section Til, which declares that any promise to pay moneys in respect of gaming contracts is null and void, and "no action shall be brought or maintained to recover any such sum of moneyi won, lost or staked on any betting transaction." The third ground of appeal was that the moneys claimed were moneys paid in pursuance of an illegal wager, though counsel said tlve appellant relied mainly on the first two grounds. Mr. Moss quoted authorities setting out that a party to a wager wishing to withhold the money must go further than telling the stakeholder not to pay out, and must say that he abandons the wager in contract, and is no longer bound bv It. It was further pointed out that the money sought to be recovered clearly came within the provisions of the Gaming Act, as it had become money lost and also that under the New Zealand law neither party to a wager had the power to revoke a stakeholder's authority. Mr. Coleman, for respondent, siu'd that it was well-settled law, by a series of English decisions, that when the stakeholder's authority had been revoked before the money 'was paid over th* depositor was'entitled to receive his money hack. Further, the illegality of the wager did not preclude recovery if the notice was given in time. Decision was reserved.