RACING “PICKS” CASE

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27751, 31 August 1955, Page 11

RACING “PICKS” CASE

HOTEL LICENSEE

CHARGED MAGISTRATE RESERVES DECISION (New Zealand Press Association) NEW PLYMOUTH, August 30. Decision was reserved by Mr W. C. Harley, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court at New Plymouth today, after he had heard evidence against William Halford Parker, licensee of the Grosvenor Hotel, New Plymouth, who was charged with using the hotel as a common gaming house on August 13. The charge arose from a “picks 6 competition conducted in the hotel. A large gallery listened to the evidence today. After giving evidence of a visit to the hotel, Detective-Sergeant J. R. Adams produced a statement which he said was handed to him by Parker on August 25. The statement said the game was conducted by patrons of the hotel. Each person marked on a card the horses he favoured to win the last six races at a particular meeting and then handed the card and the 2s entry fee to the barman, who put the cards through a slot in a locked box.

Parker said he provided suitable cards free to patrons. A number P atr °ns counted the money and the cards and wrote up the pool for all to see what would go to the winner. It was eriiirely a matter for the patrons to decide whether there would be one prize or more. Ove? the week-end, a committee marked the cards, giving three points for a win, two for a second place and one for a third place. The money received was placed in a container and left m his charge, until it was paid out to the winner ascertained by the committee, Parker said. The committee handed Parker the winner’s cards, on which he paid out. He was not a member of the committee and contributed nothing to the pool, he said. He received nothing from the pool and provided the cards iree. In permitting the competition to be held, he hoped to receive indirect benefit by attracting custom to nis hotel. There were no conditions as to who should enter and no entrant was required to purchase anything to enter. Parker said that except for holding the money until it was paid out, he had no control over the competition, which was conducted by the customers themselves.

Senior-Detective P. C. Smeaton gave evidence that the statement by Parker set out the method of operating the scheme in much the same way Parker explained it. to him. For the most part it was consistent with his own observations. The money was counted by persons who went forward voluntarily. They were not always the same. The defendant appeared to be in charge of the competition, the witness said. Legal Argument Mr J. P. Quilliam, for the prosecution, said it seemed necessary for the prosecution to establish that the premises were used for the receipt of money by or on behalf of the occupier for the consideration of any assurance, undertaking, promise, or agreement to pay or give any money on any contingency of or relating to any horse race. It appeared that the prosecution was required to prove the definition in two parts. Counsel invited the Court to assume the receipt of the money by Parker and then submitted that the money was to be paid out of the results of a horse race.

Referring to the case of McComish v. Alty, in which the licensee of the Empire Hotel, Palmerston North, appealed against his conviction for conducting an illegal lottery, Mr Quilliam said the question was whether it was an illegal lottery. Mr Justice Gresson held it was not. One felt that his Honour would, in dealing with Section 36 of the Gaming Act, have found differently if he had been aware oi another case dealing with the subject Mr Rex Abernethy, S.M., at Christchurch, had decided that what his Honour had said on that occasion was obiter dicta and was not binding on Mr Abernethy’s Court. Referring to Mr Justice Gresson’s remarks, Mr Quilliam submitted that this Court should not be guided by them. Parker was not charged with association with an illegal lottery. The crux of the matter was whether Parker’s actions contravened Section 3. (IB) of the Gaming Act. The prosecu tion submitted there had been a con tractural relationship between Parke and persons entering the competition Parker controlled the competition. Th< Court would not wish to take the view the competition, for which 5000 tickets were needed each week, would run itself.

Mr R. D. Jamieson, for Parker, submitted that Parker's custody of the cards and money did not differentiate the case from other cases quoted. The question was on what terms he had the custody. Somebody must \ have custody of the boxes and the money. This custody was simply a safety precaution ana did not help the principle of the matter.

It was submitted that the facts in this case were indistinguishable from the facts in the McComish case and that the Court must follow the decision of Mr Justice Gresson. It appeared from the legal authorities that the “picks” game was not betting, a lottery, or a sweepstake. He claimed that the fact that Parker was a licensed victualler was wholely irrelevant and immaterial to this case. The Magistrate: I’ve come to the conclusion that, if the thing is illegal, it is just as illegal in a billiard saloon or a barber’s shop as it is in a hotel.