Judgement for Banks: No Gaming on Their Side: Speculation Distinct from Gambling Judgement was given by his Honour Judge Peter Grain in H. M. Supreme Cow t on Tueslay in the appeal of the Nederlandsche Indische Handelsbank and the Netherlands Trading, Society against the Official Receiver's decision rejecting pro cts by both of the appellants in connexion with the bankruptcy of Judah Isaac Ezra. The appellants are creditors for very considerable sums of money, and their claims had been rejected on the ground that the transactions entered into with bankrupt were gambling transactions.
His Lordship on Tuesday ruled that the transactions were legitimate business transactions, and allowed the appeal. The full judgement follows These two oases come before me on a motion by the Netherlands of the Oficial Receiver dated April Trading Society that the decision
14, 1991, rejecting a proof of their Society against the estate of Judah Isaac Ezra, a debtor in bankruptcy, for Tls. 90,849.12 may be reversed and the proof admitted.
And a similar motion by the Nederlandsche Indische Handelsbank that a proof of this bank for Tis, 495,131.87 may be admitted and the Official Receiver's rejection reversed.
Both cases raise the same points of law and fact, it has therefore been agreed that they shall be heard together.
The facts are as follows:—On August 7, 1990, the debtor sold to Netherlands Trading Society, two suns of £25,000, on August 9 a sun of £25,000 and on August 19 a sura of £10,000, the date of delivery in each case being December, 1920.
In the Nederlandsche Bank there the debtor sold the sums £25,000, £50,000, £10,000, £20,000 and £50,000.
In the case of the Netherlands Society there was a promissory note and judgement had been obtained for the amount due.
In the Nederlandsche Bank there was no promissory note and no judgement.
On the dates when the various accounts to be delivered under the contracts became due, the debtor failed to fulfil his obligations to these sums of money and shortly afterward filed his petition in bankruptcy. In due course proofs of the debts of the two Banks came before the Official Receiver who rejected them on the ground that they were monies due on contracts which were illegal by reason of the Gaming Acts. On behalf of the Oficial Receiver it has been argued that these were merely contracts to pay the difference in exchange when the money became
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.