Supreme Court APPEALS UPHELD IN OXFORD GAMING CHARGE

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30191, 24 July 1963, Page 9

Supreme Court APPEALS UPHELD IN OXFORD GAMING CHARGE

Appeals by two men against a ruling by the Magistrate's Court in Rangiora were upheld in a reserved judgment delivered by Mr Justice Haslam in the Supreme Court yesterday. The Magistrate’s Court decision was that the men. Ross Pinn and Walter Samuel Longman. barman and licensee of the Commercial Hotel, Oxford, had acted as agents for bar patrons in investing money on the totalisator contrary to the provisions of the Gaming Act. The appeals were heard in Christchurch on April 22 and in Wellington on July 10. Evidence was given that the appellants had betting accounts at the nearest branch of the Totalisator Agency' Board, at Rangiora. Bar patrons had an informal arrangement with the appellants whereby they nominated their bets in the hotel bar. and these bets were recorded in notebooks kept in the bar for the purpose, and then telephoned to the agency at Rangiora. in the name of one or other of the appellants. Some patrons paid in cash and others were given credit for their bets. The smaller dividends were paid from cash, and the larger wins after a cheque had arrived from the Totalisator Agency Board. In his judgment, his Honour noted that Pinn and Longman did not receive any commission or other direct remuneration for their services. Section 53 of the Gaming

Act, as amended, provides ( fines or imprisonment for those investing money with . the Totalisator Agency Board ( as an agent for another, with , the proviso that this should , not apply if Ute person mak- . ing the investment does not • receive any “payment, fee, j commission or other remun- , eration in respect of the mak- , ing of the investment.” Of the betters, his Honour , said in his judgment: “Some were personal friends of the , appellants, but there was no evidence either to show that strangers were attracted to the bar because of the betting facilities available, or that the customers consisted exclusively of bar patrons who happened to avail themselves of the opportunity of placing casual bets. The learned Magistrate drew the inference that these facilities would have the effect of holding and attracting patronage to the hotel, although there was no evidence of any active solicitation of bets. “The only issue, therefore, in these appeals is whether these bets were proved to have been taken in the course of a business as an agent for investing money in connexion with the working of a 1 totalisator. . . , While the ■ word ‘business” can connote merely the state of being busily engaged in some mani ner, or again refer to an ocl cupation about which a man is busy, I think that a nar- : rower interpretation must be • looked for in this instance,” his Honour said. ; “I think that mere evidence

of having a number of persons whom he obliges gratuitously in the manner disclosed here is inadequate to establish a business. Such conduct bears a resemblance to the actions of a member of the staff of an institution who may place investments with an agency of the board at the request and on the instructions of a number of his workmates, and does so without offending under the section. I cannot agree that a possible advantage to the established business run by them can on the facts here convert their conduct into a business of the prohibited type. “I can find here no evidence which justifies me in concluding that the average investor in the Oxford district would regard the Commercial Hotel as running the business of a betting agent,” said his Honour. Mr J. G. Leggat appeared for the appellants, and Messrs C. M. Roper and I. C. J. Polson for the Crown, the re--1 spondent.