GAMBLING DEBTS.

Observer, Volume 6, Issue 149, 21 July 1883, Page 3

GAMBLING DEBTS.

The. case of Q-allagher v. White contained some Jltrather curious and interesting revelations on the :.%sts*te7 of . tlje law in relation to gambhng debts. . ..Defendant had. given a promissory note to Joseph cover a sporting debt, and thia note ;,Vas 'endorsed by the receiver to his brother; ;;k'Miehael ' Cf-ajlagher. Defendant swore lhat he' tod' nevei. received any valuable considerationfor it^l^iH, which \vias given to a man named Oxford,, 7 die,^as, unable to say. whether Joseph' Gallathenature of the transaction. "^ffl^a^'&^tfrafc 'where a, bill' given' to coVfer a 4j>gjfprf^_^,debfc: lsendprsed to a thr^d party/who fe ___ebe£_£._'_l^^ of business, and ,;;*^s»r^ Abt ' the litt%Ut§^^^ Ahe is entitled to recoyw fppin the ongmal maker.

K is usual in^uch cases .to fold down the signature, and merely exhibit to the acceptor the ■amount andf the endorsement, when, of course, 'no question/s are asked. That there is reason in this rule /must -be admitted by any impartial mind. Where a man has made a bet, and afterwards discovers that he has been cheated, it is optional/with him to decline to settle ; but when he deliberately puts his signature to a bill, ifc is but rijrlit to assume that he had no reason to repudiate the debt, and that the making of the document was only done to suit his convenience. We pave no sympathy whatever with sharpers and welraners ; but while fche turf continues to be one of (sur leading national pastimes, and bookmakers ars recognised as persons who risk their skill and c^'/pital in the business of betting, they have a to at least as much consideration as other persons who meet them on the same terms.