BIG BETTING.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 243, 14 October 1933, Page 7

BIG BETTING.

MOTHER AND SON. DEPARTMENT'S TAX CLAIM. stories by bookmakers. (From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, October 9. In view of the spring meeting the case °f Ernest Wall Vandenberg, which has been engaging the attention of one of ""J" Courts during the past week, might be termed "seasonable"; for it is concerned wholly with racing and betting. But. I fear that a large percentage of tte many thousands who failed to strike it" at Rand wick must have felti that the reports of the case were tinged *ith bitter irony. Vandenberg is a Wan who has won huge sums on the racecourse and his trouble is that he j\ as teen too fortunate. For the Taxation. Commissioner holds that Vanden)wg should have returned his winnings ? Ver a certain period as portion of his •ncome, and, therefore, maintains that additional £-1000 is due over and stove previous payments on account of ln «Sme tax. Ihe position is briefly as follows: — Uuring the years 1927-30, the sums of £3500, f 1000, £7000 and £5050 were tece ivcd by Vandenberg and not for in his income tax returns. °.has been a bookmaker, but he was | e ?istered with the A.R.C., and, therecould not operate under the A.J.C. 15 money was won at Randwick, but .by "laying the odds." It was won y the systematic backing of horses — .feather, of one celebrated horse; and a Ddenberg claimed that all these sums * e re won by him as a "punter" —the D 1? capacity in which he could make ' Be y on an A.J.C. course. "Speculative Profits." argument is that the were purely speculative investments by reason of his special knowof the horse's chances and that e money he speculated with was from.

his private resources and did not form part of his capital as a registered bookmaker. For these reasons his lawyer maintained that Vandenberg's gains should be treated like "speculative profits made on the Stock Exchange' and are not assessable for income tax. As against this, Mr. Davey, for the Crown, argued that such a system of betting, based upon "the information of persons in the best position to judge,' must be regarded as a "profit-making venture," and therefore the Tax Commissioner must have his percentage of the winnings, too. Mr. Justice Halse Rogers has adjourned the case to hear further legal argument; hut the general public has been interested not in the fate of Vandenberg's appeal, but in his extraordinary run of good luck, and in the magnitude of his betting transactions. Not the least intriguing feature of the case is the remarkable fact that Vandenberg made practically all this money by backing one famous horse — Amounis —whose portrait was produced in Court during the hearing, presumably for the edification of his Honor. The basis of those operations was admittedly "information received," and Mr. William Pearson, owner of Amounis,; duly appeared in the box to confirm Vandenberg's statements in this respect. Pearson told the Court that he had been a friend of the Vandenberg family for a long time, and had known Ernest "ever since he was a little boy." He had made a point of giving young Vandenberg first-hand information about Amounis and his chances, and Ernest seems to have used his friend's "tips" most consistently and assiduously. Backed Amounis 22 Times. I In reply to a question Vandenberg told the Court that he had backed I Amounis on 22 occasions when he won, j and there were only two or three occa- J | sions on which Amounis won on which j Vandenberg was not "behind him." Of course, even with the advantage of Pearson's assistance and advice Vanden- j berg could not have made all this money I without a full share of the fatalistic! courage which seems to be essential for | all successful gambling. Once he backed | Amounis for the Williamstown Cup at | 3 to I—he put on £000 and won £1800.-j On another occasion, Vanderberg made "the biggest bet of his life," backing Amounis with Alldritt, another book-, maker j and he became almost romantic as he-recalled the scene. "Alldritt stood!

underneath a tree," he told the Court, "and he called 7 to 2 the field. I said to him I will have a monkey ( £500) on Bill, and he challenged me again." So Vandenberg put £1000 on at 7 to 2, and as Amounis won he got £3500 for his venture." It is to Vandenberg's credit that he offered afterwards to give Pearson half of his bet, but the owner of Amounis declined.

I It should be noted also that Vandenberg, in spite of his devotion to Amounis was always afraid of LimericK, and would not back Amounis against that redoubtable opponent. Mother Bets £1000 to £2000. The evidence showed that young Vandenberg was aided in his speculative activities most efficiently by an energetic and enterprising mother. Even Mr. Justice Halse Rogers knew the lady by reputation—-"we all know," he admitted, "that the mother's name was a newspaper headline in the racing section for years.", When Mr. John James Hackett ("commonly known as Jim," as the poet has it), once a very distinguished bookmaker, was called, he told the Court that he had a clear recollection of laying a bet of three to one with Vandenberg—£9oo to £300 —of course against Amounis. He remembered this particularly because he recalled "the mother of this boy coming up when the horse was two to one and saying 'I will have £4000 to £2000.'" Poor Jim was rather in a difficulty—all the "bookies" seem to have been afraid of Mrs. Vandenberg, whose luck was phenomenal, especially when backing Amounis, and one of them, Matthews, told the Court, "I always chopped her bets in half." So Hackett said, "I can't do that, because I have just laid your son £900 to £300, and the best I can lay you is £2000 to £1000." Of course the lady took it, and of course Amounis won —it was the Cantala Stakes of 1929 —and as Hackett left the witness-box he remarked reflectively, "I lost more in fielding in that race than on any other race in my career." It was all very entertaining to the large "gallery" of punters and others who sat "pop-eyed" (so one of the newspapers said) through the hearing listening to th° tale of colossal bets and fabulous wins. Even the Court was j interested, and though Mr. Justice Halse j Rogers began by remarking that he would "suffer from heart failure" if he risked such bets, he admitted later that "large amounts of money have their fascination" for him as for others-