In article
<cb4ea0b7-4476-459e-97de-f67665e022c8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Andrew B. <bulland@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On 22 Apr, 10:05, John Hall <nospam_no...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> In article
>> <35a7a6fb-effc-4d73-ab8e-77d78f815...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>
>> rita.c...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
>> >In the 70s my partner's ex-father-in-law had a book of bridge stories/
>> >anecdotes which he had hoped to be given when XFIL went to join the
>> >great bridge game in the sky. Sadly it had disappeared.
>>
>> >One story from the 30s, at the height of bridge mania, was about a man
>> >who found himself in court for shooting at his wife at a bridge
>> >competition. (Non fatally, I assume) The judge who was also an avid
>> >player, asked what cards they were holding at the time of the offence,
>> >and what the bidding had been. He was appalled at the wife's poor
>> >bidding which he judged to have provoked her husband and he dismissed
>> >the case. I know, probably urban myth!
>>
>> No, it's quite true. It's known as the Bennett murder case.
>
>Except it was Mr Bennett who was shot, and Mrs Bennett wasn't actually
>acquitted because his play/bidding was so poor, but because it was
>deemed to be accidental.
I assumed (and continue to do so) that we are talking about different
things. Besides the genders being reversed, there's not much else in
common
between OP's description and the Bennett case. He must be talking about
some other case.
|
