Nossel v Friedman
| Jurisdiction | South Africa |
| Citation | 1951 (3) SA 285 (T) |
Nossel v Friedman
1951 (3) SA 285 (T)
1951 (3) SA p285
|
Citation |
1951 (3) SA 285 (T) |
|
Court |
Transvaal Provincial Division |
|
Judge |
Murray J, and Bresler AJ |
|
Heard |
May 4, 1951 |
|
Judgment |
May 22, 1951 |
Flynote : Sleutelwoorde D
Gaming and wagering — Money lent after termination of gambling, to pay gaming losses already incurred — Recoverability of.
Headnote : Kopnota
Money lent, to enable the borrower to pay gaming losses already incurred E by him, after the termination of the gambling, i.e., once the play has definitely ended, is recoverable by the lender.
Where the lender had made the loan when play had definitely ceased, the settling up being final, but had made it in the gaming house on the night of the gaming and immediately thereafter.
Held, that the lender had made out a prima facie case for the recovery F of the loan. Krasner v Maleta, 1949 (2) SA 911 (T),distinguished.
Case Information
Appeal from a decision in a magistrate's court. The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.
L. Lawrence, for the appellant, referred to Gascoyne v Paul and Hunter, G 1917 T.P.D. 170; Krasner v Maleta, 1949 (2) SA 911; Dodd v Hadley, 1905 T.S. 439; Rudolph v Lyons, 1930 T.P.D. 85; Ruskin v Wasserman and Others, 1917 W.L.D. 174 at p. 176; Sykes v Beadon, 11 Ch. 170, at p. 194; In re O'Shea, Ex parte Lancaster, 1911 (2) K.B. 981; Macdonald v Green, 1950 (2) A.E.R. 1240; Cheshire and Fifoot Law of Contract, pp. 208, 216.
C. J. M. Nathan, for the respondent: I concede that the appeal must be considered on the basis that Klotz's version is correct. But even on this basis, plaintiff has not made out a case, see Krasner's case. supra, at pp. 918, 920/1. Plaintiff was a co-player, and the loan was made at the table for the purpose of enabling defendant to pay his gambling debts. Settling up and paying is part and H
1951 (3) SA p286
parcel of the game. Compare, in English law, Macdonald's case, supra.
Lawrence, in reply.
Cur. adv. vult. A
Postea (May 22nd).
Judgment
Murray, J.:
In this matter appeal is brought against a judgment of B absolution from the instance granted by the magistrate at the conclusion of the case for plaintiff (now appellant) whose summons claimed repayment of £60 (sixty pounds) on an alleged loan of cash. The magistrate held on the evidence adduced for plaintiff that the alleged loan was in fact given in the course of a gambling transaction and was irrecoverable at law.
C The evidence given for the appellant was that of himself and one Klotz. Their respective accounts of the transaction differed radically. But appellant's counsel contended that on the version given by. Klotz (which, for the purposes of argument, he asked the Court to accept in D preference to that of the appellant himself) a case had been made out on which (if the principles of Gascoyne v Paul and Hunter, 1917 T.P.D. 170 were applied) absolution should not have been granted.
The story as told by Klotz is as follows. One evening in February, 1949, E ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Halsey and Others v Jones
...but which G fall outside the foregoing categories; see e.g. Dodd's case, supra; Biljoen v Petersen, 1922 NPD 63; Nossel v Friedman, 1951 (3) SA 285; Lewin v Jacobson, 1958 (2) SA 432; Wilson v O'Hallaran, 20 N.L.R. 155; Forsyth v Clairwood Turf Club, 1960 (3) SA 234; see also Voet, 11.5.6 (......
-
Van der Walt v Gibson
...table are also tainted, but not loans made the moment parties leave the table, Krasner v Maleta, 1949 (2) SA 911; B Nossel v Friedman, 1951 (3) SA 285. Promises after the play are binding, Rudolph's case, supra. This case refers to Hyams v Stuart King, supra, and states that the Transvaal C......
-
Jones v John Barr & Co (Pty) Ltd and Another
...his stakes H on the table, the debts are debts of the same kind - they are gambling debts.' In the later case of Nossel v Friedman, 1951 (3) SA 285 (T), MURRAY, J., with whom BRESLER, A.J., concurred, quoted this passage from Krasner's case, and then said, at pp. 287 - 'If (this) . . . is t......
-
Fairthorn (Pty) Ltd v Zacharopulos
...accepted also by RAMSBOTTOM, J., in Krasner v Maleta, 1949 (2) SA 911 (T) at pp. 918 - 9, and by MURRAY, J., in Nossel v Friedman, 1951 (3) SA 285 (T) at p. 287. In Krasner's case, however, the opinion was expressed that Voet, 11.5.5, excluded from that B general proposition the case of a l......
-
Halsey and Others v Jones
...but which G fall outside the foregoing categories; see e.g. Dodd's case, supra; Biljoen v Petersen, 1922 NPD 63; Nossel v Friedman, 1951 (3) SA 285; Lewin v Jacobson, 1958 (2) SA 432; Wilson v O'Hallaran, 20 N.L.R. 155; Forsyth v Clairwood Turf Club, 1960 (3) SA 234; see also Voet, 11.5.6 (......
-
Van der Walt v Gibson
...table are also tainted, but not loans made the moment parties leave the table, Krasner v Maleta, 1949 (2) SA 911; B Nossel v Friedman, 1951 (3) SA 285. Promises after the play are binding, Rudolph's case, supra. This case refers to Hyams v Stuart King, supra, and states that the Transvaal C......
-
Jones v John Barr & Co (Pty) Ltd and Another
...his stakes H on the table, the debts are debts of the same kind - they are gambling debts.' In the later case of Nossel v Friedman, 1951 (3) SA 285 (T), MURRAY, J., with whom BRESLER, A.J., concurred, quoted this passage from Krasner's case, and then said, at pp. 287 - 'If (this) . . . is t......
-
Fairthorn (Pty) Ltd v Zacharopulos
...accepted also by RAMSBOTTOM, J., in Krasner v Maleta, 1949 (2) SA 911 (T) at pp. 918 - 9, and by MURRAY, J., in Nossel v Friedman, 1951 (3) SA 285 (T) at p. 287. In Krasner's case, however, the opinion was expressed that Voet, 11.5.5, excluded from that B general proposition the case of a l......