Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

BILLIARDS.

THE CASE AGAINST GRAY'

[UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATION COPYRIGHT] LONDON, Fob. 16. In the action against Gray, for alleged breach of contract, Roberts claims £6OOO. Roberts, in his evidence, stated that the agreement arranged fqf the receipts to be pooled and divided, Roberts paying first-class travelling. expenses of Gray, senior, and Gray, junior, which was afterwards to be deducted from Gray’s share of the receipts. When Gray reached London, however, lie made an arrangement with Riley that he was to'receive £3O weekly. Riley’s gross receipts had been £4655, Gray receiving £7BO. In consequence of the repudiation of the agreement he (Roberts) had lost £SOO at Dublin, £350 at Manchester, and £I2OO on two other matches. The receipts of. the Diggle match, which Gray repudiated at fo minutes’ notice, were £ll3. They would have been at least £SOO if Gray had played . , , , For the defence, it was stated that Riley’s net profit was only £3OO. Roberts had misstated the date of his expiry of his contract with the bonzolme bail manufacturers, which made it impossible for Roberts to play with crystallite balls. Gray, in his evidence, said that he was sure it was arranged in Melbourne that he and Roberts were to play together always, but the question of profits was not'mentioned. His reputation suffered through changing the balls. He -added that he hoped to get the English championship, but it would take a vear or two. After Gray (senr.), Stevenson and Riley (with whom Gray was until lately under contract) had given evidence, Roberts was awarded £ISOO .damages. ' . The Lord Chief Justice postponed arguments on legal points as to whether the contract was beneficial to Gray and if so, whether the benefit was injured by Roberts’ inability to play other tlian with the bonzolme balls tor the first two months. GRAY v. STEVENSON. , (Received February IS, 0.0 p.m.) / Gray made breaks of 2-80 and 275, whereof 273 were off the red. Stevenson made a. break of 584.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GIST19120219.2.41.1

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3453, 19 February 1912, Page 7

Word count
Tapeke kupu
327

BILLIARDS. Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3453, 19 February 1912, Page 7

BILLIARDS. Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3453, 19 February 1912, Page 7

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert