ANOTHER GREAT GAMBLING SCANDAL.

Observer, Volume 4, Issue 94, 1 July 1882, Page 243

ANOTHER GREAT GAMBLING SCANDAL.

— , -ft, dBSOO TO A PENNY ! Racing- and turf pursuits generally, •which occupy a prominent position amongst our timehonoured national pastimes, are worthy of countenance and support from the public, so long as they contine to be conducted with honesty and decency. It is only when they become associated with sharping and roguery that the decadence of j those pastimes is threatened. It is therefore the interest of the public and the duty of the Press to sweep away any disgraceful practices which tend to bring racing into general disrepute, and to excite suspicion as to the purity of its i decisions. These remarks are, of course, made in a general sense. We do not apply them specially to any of the circumstances which we are about to narrate. - We have gleaned these facts from j various persons concerned in- the affair, represent- j ing both sides of the issues involved, and we state the circumstances without exaggeration, malice, j or any other motive whatever than a desire to keep our readers posted up in matters of interest. The Auckland Handicap Hurdle Race, 150sovs., was run on the 3rd January last, and was won by King Don, carrying list, Clarence, who finished a poor second, carrying 12st. The betting on these two had been 100 to 50 on Clarence, and 100 to 33 on King Don some days previous to the race, and it was 3tol on each on the course. Clarence did not run anything like the horse he was expected, and greatly disappointed his backers*. He made a | serious mistake in the race, when it was almost a gift to him, and did not succeed in negotiating j the obstacle until King Don had gained a lead of j a quarter of a mile. This fact gave rise to some comment at the time. Among the persons on the racecourse on the day the Steeplechase was run was a gentleman, whom we will call X., wellknown and highly connected in Auckland — a man of experience, who has travelled a great deal, possesses great business capacity, is credited with considerable means, and is about the last person who' might bo expected to be victimised by anyone. During the day he was much in the company of the bookmakers, and it is alleged that he made bets to a considerable amount. In fact, he is is said to have, what is called in racing parlance, "plunged" on Clarence. In one instance he is said to have offered £500 to a penny on that horse. He says he has no recollection of the circumstance himself, but he believes that he made the bet, and, what is more, has since paid the whole or part of it. However, his wagers were freely booked by the well-known bookmakers,' Drake, Weston, Snyder, and Belcher. Joe Grallagher, Blakey, and some others refused to have any transactions.with him, the reason of which will be more clear directly. Altogether K. made bets, or is alleged to have done go, in various sums to the amount of between £1000 and £1200, and these bets he was called upon by the bookmakers a day or two after the race to settle. He gave bills as follows for the amounts : — To Weston a bill at one month for £325, and another bill at three months for £200 ; to Ramus a bill at three months for £226 ; to Drake ,a three months bill for £200 ; and various other smaller amounts to different people, amounting to about £150 or £200. The bookmakers endorsed, these bills, and took them round to the bill-discounters, in order to convert them into cash. One bill was snbmitted to Messrs. Dignan and Armstrong, but they declined to deal with it, on the ground that X.'s signature (with which they were well acqainted) had a suspiciously peculiar appearance. Another bill was offered to a financial agent in the Insurance Buildings, who declined it on similar grounds. He observed that K. could not have been sober when he signed the document, as the signature was almost undecipherable and sagged across the paper at an angle ; while the date was so illegibly written that only the "J " was readable, and it might have stood for " June," " July," or anything else, according to the ingenuity of the reader. Mr J. B. Russell was also offered one of the bills, and declined it. Ultimately the bills were discounted as follows :— Messrs Hort and Levy, £200 ; Mr Abbott, £200, and another bill,, the amount of which . has not transpired ; a legal firm, £3,25 ; while Ramus held one for £226. The bill for £325 jnras taken-up by K. shortly after it reached maturity, and he says he would have' paid the pthers, without disputing them, had not other circumstances occurred . to ; prevent him. It appears .that about' the time ; he gave the bills, or, some time pr.eyiQu.agy, lie' inade a nuptial settlement,' which ! ; .trans£errp ; a.. the.' whole' "of his. property to-ymiyfifef^n^^^wb^e^so-

lutely refused. to. allow a single farthing pf, 'the ; . ; estate to be. employed in the liquidation of gambling ;debts. They even went further,, and ■warned the banks not to advance any money to ' K. on the prospect of his being able to secure them from his property. Consequently the other bills were dishonoured. Writs' were then issued for the amount of their claims against K. by Hart and Levy, and by Ramus, and Messrs Russell and Devore hare been retained for the defence. The affidavit of X., the defendant, alleges that he was served with a writ on April 25th by A. Drake as payee in a ' certain promissory note ; that he (K.) is not aware that he ever made such promissory ..note ; that he had no business transactions with the said Drake ; nor did he receive any money or other valuable consideration whatever from Drake. Further, K. swears in his affidavit that; . from the forenoon of the Ist January to the 6th. inclusive (the races took place on the 2nd and 3rd) ''. he ivas in a state of total drunkenness and. entirety incapable of managing or undertahing any business or other transaction ; that shortly after the 6th of January Drake informed him that he (K.) had made bets with him on the Auckland Racecourse during the race meeting, which terminated on the 3rd, which bets he (K.) had lost. Defendant further swears in' his affidavit that he was informed by Joseph Hart that a promissory note was brought to him by John Smith, hotelkeeper, for the purpose of being discounted, and Hart doubled up the note for the purpose of not showing the signature of the payee and. endorser, that he, Hart, had no idea in whose favour the bill was made, did not know that Drake was connected with it, and did not look at the names. . There are two affidavits by Mr William Percival, Secretary of the Auckland Racing Club. In the first Mr Percival swears that he recollects the race meeting which ended on the 3rd of January last. He knows Drake and the defendant K. Both were on the racecourse, and defendant was under the influence of intoxicating drink. He saw defendant in the company of betting men, and he believes the promissory note, the subject of the action, to have been made by the said defendant for the payment of wagers lost by him to the said A. Drake. The ' Becond affidavit applies to the case of Mr Ramus. Mr Percival says he knows the defendant K. and Weston, a professional bookmaker and betting man. The plaintiff is also a bookmaker and betting man. He saw the plaintiff and the defendant in the company of betting men on the Auckland racecourse during the race meeting. Defendant was, during the meeting, in a state of drunkenness, and while in this condition Percival saw him frequently associating with the bookmakers. The law, in respect to bills of this kind, is this : — The person who gives them to a second may plead that he received no valuable consideration for them, and if this plea is established the amount of the bill cannot be recovered. But if such a bill has has been endorsed over to a third party, another ingredient comes in. The law is that where the name of a bookmaker, professional betting-man, or gambler appears in the bill, a third person becoming possessed of the bill, and being aware of the ocenpation of the persons whose names so appear, is bound to satisfy himself that the bills were not given for mere gambling debts or wagers. If he can be shown to have been, aware that this was the case, the plea of " no consideration " is a bar to his action for recovery. He cannot plead neglect as an excuse. But, on the other hand, if the third person sueing - on the bill can show that he was not aware, and had no reason to suspect, that the person whose name appears in the document was a gambler,, betting man, or bookmaker, his claim holds good, and a plea of " no consideration " will not invalidate it, notwithstanding that it may be shown, that one or more of the persons whose names are on the bill were such gamblers, betting men, or bookmakers. We believe it is alleged in one or more of these cases that the discounter either did not look at the name of the endorser, or was not aware of the calling. This is a plain, unvarnished statement of the facts we have gleaned, and comment is needless.