AN APPEAL ALLOWED.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 621, 25 September 1909, Page 6

AN APPEAL ALLOWED.

PUBLICATION OF BETTING NOTICES. THE LAW DEFINED. ' -' (By Teiegraph-rPress Association.) Christchurch, September 24. '.' ,The judgment.of Mr. justice Sims in tho appeal case of Barnett v. Police was received to-day. In- giving.judgnient, his ..Honour stated that .Matthew. Frank .Barnett, appellant in the case, was . convicted' by' the stipendiary'magistrate at Ch'ri.stchurch of the offence of publishing on July 3 a newspaper entitled "Daylight," containing, notification by some person as to betting at horse races.to bo run'in.New Zealand.. Tho magistrate hold that the publication of the information was an offence within the meaning .of Subsection 1, Section .30, of tho Gaming Act, and convicted tho. appellant. Tho question' Has whether this decision was erroneous in point, of law; ' Subsection 1, Section 30, made it penal to publish in any newspaper:(1) Any advertisement' or notification made by or on behalf of any person, club, or, association as" to (a) betting on any; horse- race, to be run, or (b) investments-'.on'tho totalisator in respect of any-such-race';! or (2) any. information,' advice, or suggestion as to the probable result of nny'such race. The information published by appellant was clearly information as 'to-Dotting on horse races to-be run, and tuo question was whether it could bo regarded as an advertisement or notification on behalf of any .person; club, of association. He thought it could not- be so treated, and that tho effect of the first' part of-Subsection 1, Section 30, was not to prohibit the publication, of in-, formation such as that in question, but to prohibit the advertising of any person, club, or association in connection with the business of : betting on any horse race, or.in connection with making investments on • tho totalisator in respect; to any "such" race.'.That this was tho meaning !of the section-was -made, clear,: he thought, the language used, in connection with ''.'investments on .tho totalisator. ' These ihvestmenis" were mado'; on the racecourse on the day- the 'raceywas run, and it was thns practically impossible to publish in any newspaper, before'the race was run any information -with regard to investments on the totalisator. !,It could not be supposed, • therefore, that the I'Legislature was seeking to prohibit something I'whichi' was practically an impossibility. The j ; only,way in which a" reasonable meaning could rbe given'to the words-of the subsection as to |.investments on the totalisator was to treat thenuas. referring, to,advertisements or notifications ■ that some - person, ■ olub, or association, who .was named or indicated therein, was ready and-willing'.to.undertake business of investing money for others on, the totalisator. If words, :should.-he constroed'.in this- way. it followed 'then, that the .words,in use in connection: with betting ought to be construed in a similar way, andbe read as prohibiting the publication of any .advertisement or notification that nny person, club, or association named or indicated therein was ready, to make bets on any .horso. race, or . act' as., agent for any other person in making such bets, or to.act in any other .way in connection with betting on a horse., race! If the construction contended ■ for by respondent were, accepted, the words would amount.to,the prohibition of the publication of any .information with regard to betting on any horse~face to bo rnn; but the Legislature did not..prohibit that, especially, as it might havo done by'.the use of a-few. simple .words, and ; where the intention 'was to prohibit the publication"'of -information with .regard to' any matter that intention was clearlv expressed. Thus Subsection 1, Section'SO, prohibits publication; in newspaper or other document of any. information, advice, or suggestion as to the probable, result, of any horse tace to be run,'and Subsection .4 ,ot the same section prohibits the publication in any newspaper or other document of - any statement as, to tho dividend by. totalisator, on any race, or as to the starting:.price in respect to such, races! .The. appeal was, therefore, allowed,, and-the conviction!.set.iasideV As-.the 'prosecution-'ih this case..was made v by the police officer, ''and there was a genuine point of law'to be argued, costs would not .bo allowed appellant. ~' '