Documents pertain to a case filed by dealer (Johnston) against theatre manager (George) regarding a wager on a horse race. The plaintiff claims he was fraudulently coerced into the wager, by that the defendant knew the race had already run previous to entering into the wager, and that the horse the defendant backed (“Our Jack”) had already won the race.
Documents include:
1. Warrant to sue
2. Writ of summons and statement of claim
3. Warrant to defend
4. Statement of defence
5. Summons for leave to deliver interrogatories for the examination of the defendant
6. Affidavit of plaintiff in support of application for leave to deliver interrogatories
7. Praecipe to set down for trial
8. Affidavit of service of summons for leave to deliver interrogatories
9. Amended statement of defence
10. Summons for order that certain points of law be argued before trial
11. Affidavit of Dennis Ivar George in support of summons for order that certain points of law be argued before trial
12. Order for discovery
13. Order for discovery
14. Summons for leave to deliver interrogatories for the examination of the plaintiff
15. Affidavit of defendant in support of application for leave to deliver interrogatories
16. Order granting leave to deliver interrogatories for the examination of the defendant
17. Affidavit as to documents by the defendant
18. Defendants answer to interrogatories
19. Affidavit of Ernest Alexander Johnston in opposition of summons for order that certain points of law be argued before trial
20. Amended statement of claim
21. Affidavit as to documents
22. Statement of defence to amended statement of claim
23. Order that certain points of law be argued before trial
24. Submission of council for the defendant
25. Submission of council for the plaintiff
26. Reply of counsel for the defendant
27. Judgement of Skerrett C.J. on questions of law
28. Notice of motion on appeal
29. Notice by respondent of intention to contend that judgement should be varied
Chief Justice, Sir Charles J. Skerrett, delivered reserved judgement on points of law on 14 April 1927 for two questions involved in the case. The first being the recoverability or otherwise by plaintiff under the Gaming Act of money lost and paid by cheque, and the second being the recoverability or otherwise of money from a person carrying on business of a bookmaker. It was ruled in the first case that the money was recoverable, but if the transaction was with a bookmaker the amount was irrecoverable.
Department
Archives
Production Date
1926-1927
Subject Category
Credit Line
See: Taranaki Scandals The Court Record Collection page for more details on the collection and other interesting cases. http://pukeariki.com/Heritage-Collections/Taranaki-Scandals 
Accession No
ARC2017-714

 Share


Can you help us? Click ‘Add Comment’ to share names, details and stories to help enrich the collection.


Be the first to comment.