The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the legality of the consideration for the Hundi in suit and the absence of undue influence exerted by the plaintiff firm in the execution of the Hundi by the defendant.

JUDGMENT

Buckland, J. - There is not much dispute about the facts of this case and they are simple. The plaintiffs sue as a firm and are described in the cause-title as carrying on business in co-partnership as Turf Accountants, a business otherwise known as that of bookmakers, which consists of gambling on horse races, the profits of which they share. The defendant engages in horse racing; he owns race horses and bets on horse races in considerable amounts. On the 20th October 1920 he owed the sum of Rs. 8,500 which he had lost to the plaintiffs at the Barrackpore races. As he did not pay, the plaintiffs reported him to the Barrackpore Turf Club, by the Secretary of which he was, it has been stated, though no formal proof has been given of the fact, reported to the Royal Calcutta Turf Club. On the 6th December, the defendant received a letter signed by the Secretary of the Royal Calcutta Turf Club referring to the report received from the Secretary, Barrackpore Races as to considerable sums owing from the defendant to several book-makers, among whom the plaintiffs are included, amounting to Rs. 45,220 in all, and informing him that if that sum was not paid into the office of the Royal Calcutta Turf Club by the 22nd February he would be posted as a defaulter and notice to that effect would be published in the Sheet Racing Calendars. Pending settlement of his account he was informed that the entries of his horses for certain races had not been accepted and that in the mean time he was not to bet or enter the race enclosures. The authority for such a letter or that the Royal Calcutta Turf Club was entitled so to deal with the defendant upon such a report, has not been questioned and the hearing has proceeded upon the basis that the letter and the penalties prescribed were in order. On the 20th December the defendant went to the Albert Club, which I am informed is an institution to which persons carrying on the business of book-makers resort, and there he found the plaintiff and his other book-maker creditors. He executed Hundies in favour of his several creditors for the amounts of his losses, among them one for Rs. 8,500 in favour of the plaintiff and at the same time wrote letters addressed to them, in a form drafted by Mr. Goodman of which the letter addressed to the plaintiffs is in the following terms:

                                                                                                             The Albert Club, Ltd.,                                                                                                                      'Grosvenor House,'                                                                                                                           Calcutta, 20-12-1920.                                                                                                                             To                                                                                                                              Messrs. Leicester & Co.                                                                                                                             Dear Sir,

2. In consideration of your withdrawing my name from the R.C.T.C. and thereby preventing my becoming posted as a defaulter, I agree to pay you the sum of Rs. 8,500 (rupees eight thousand five hundred only) and hand you my promissory note herewith for the amount named.

                                                                                                                         Yours faithfully,                                                                                                                        S.P. Mullick.

3. Subsequently the defendant's name was withdrawn and he has boon able to enter the race enclosures and to bet, and has done so, but he has not paid the amount for which he drew the Hundi in suit. The only dispute on the facts is as to how the defendant came to write that letter and to draw th