Magistrate’s Comment On “Race Picks" Competition

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29067, 2 December 1959, Page 18

Magistrate’s Comment On “Race Picks" Competition

(New Zealand Press Association)

AUCKLAND, December 1. Police inquiries had cast grave doubts ftn the integrity of those conducting the racing competition in the weekly race publication the “Northern,” said Mr R.M. Grant, S.M., in a reserved judgment on a gaming issue delivered in the Magistrate’s Court at Auckland today. The “alarming disclosures” revealed by the inquiries should be referred to the proper authorities for further action, he said. The judgment was the sequel to a hearing some weeks ago when Bertram William Clapham, apartment house proprietor, and Stanley Clapham, clerk, pleaded not guilty to charges of using printing premises as a common gaming house. During the hearing. Constable Eric Cater said he had tried unsuccessfully to trace six major prize-winners announced from “Northern" competitions, and gave as his opinion that he thought the prizes were “rigged.” Mr Nigel Wilson, Q.C., who, with Mr D. J. Mason, appeared for the Claphams, protested at

the “unfairness” of this allega- i tion. Today, on the Magistrate nouncing that he concluded tblraS had been a breach of the Gaminj' Act and that he intended to convict, Mr Wilson protested at |ji| “entirely improper” behaviour w ; the prosecution in putting | ward evidence which was qutWl irrelevant and, at no stage, eq® nected with the issue before Court. It had been “highly prejudicial,” he said. In his judgment, which took | ipto account matters raised in the Court of Appeal, thevMagUMlg j found that the Claphams tadl “used the premises in question I to receive money in contractual i transactions wherein prizes weft to be given dependent on the results of horse races.” The competition was therefore in bread of Section 36 of the Gaming Act Mr Wilson said that when the competition had been engaged in, > the law as announced had been in favour of its legality. In 8 similar issue in Wellington, th# defendant had been dischat|ed without conviction. This would be the proper course of action here, he said, and, moreover, the issue had been regarded as a test case. Also the Court could show its disapproval of the prosecution’s procedure- in the case by dismissing it. The Magistrate said hig view was that a conviction must be, recorded against each defendant, ; but he agreed there was an eIR-.' ment of a test case. There would be no gaol sentence or fine intjJ posed. The defendants would bp convicted and ordered to pay costs.