THE BOOKMAKER.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 977, 18 November 1910, Page 5

THE BOOKMAKER.

IS HE WIPED OUT? SOME SINGULAR. AMENDMENTS. TRICK OR OVERSIGHT ? I ~" ■ • ■"■ 0 In another .column wo giro a report o{ e the treatment of tlio Gaming Bill in the d Legislative Council, where, at the ing stance of the Attorney-General,' some' extensive amendments were made. An examination of the amendments, to what are called "tho bookmaker clauses" re-, veals the fact' that these' clauses have been entirely recast. .What: is more, the t aiujiiidments arc such that. it. seems to bo II possible- that, the. bookmaker w.ill have a new lease' of '.life. As it left the Houso Clau'so 2 consisted of two sub-sections. Tho first provided sharp penalties (fine and imprisonment) for "every person- who frequents, loiters, or is in any street (as defined in Section 24 of tho principal Act) for the purpose of betting.-" The second 6ubclausa was of a bald and uncompromising charaoter, and read thus: "Every bookmaker who makes or offers to make any bet on any racecourse, or in any public place or . premises, is liable to the like penalties as are prescribed by the last ;- preceding. sub-section." r The Attorney-General, with tho object, >• so ho asserted, of "spreading the net as r wHely as possible" proposed to make the 5 following amendments. He proposed to. B repeal Clause 21 of tho principal Act of 1908 (the main clause against street-bot- " ting, in which "street" is defined in detail), and, as a consequence, to omit tho reference to this section in Sub-Section lof Clause 2 of this year's Bill. Hβ proposed also to abolish tho complete and comprehensive Sub-Section 2 of Clause 2. In substitution he proposed- some new-sub-clauses. Tho first penalises "every bookmaker who bets in any street, or on any racecourse, or in any public place." Tho second defines "betting." Tho third , defines "street," repeating the definition in the repealed Clanse 21 of tho 1008 Act. It is hero that the loophole for the * bookmaker seems to be provided. For 1 the sub-section, reads (the parts not i bearing on the , point under notice are 3 omitted): "5. In this section the term street means—(a) any public Toad, etc. .. . (b) any enclosed or unenclosed land (not being . . . a racecourse . on . j which a race meeting is being held) - j in any city or borough." , It is thus seen that while the first of ) Dr. Findlay's new sub-sections penalises tho bookmaker who bets "in any street or on any racecourse," "street" is defined as not including a racecourso on which races arc in progress. There is thus a conflict of meaning, and a Court called upon to give a decision could only clear tlie Bill of inconsistency and contradiction by asserting a. difference between "a racecourse" and "a racecourse on which a race meeting is being held." Perhaps the parenthesis' in the new Sub-Section 5 of Clause 2 was included by accident, being carelessly carried on'' . from the 1908.Act—perhaps not. If. the . idea is to "spread'.the net" moro widely;- ' it is strange..,that..this..modification of ■ the prohibition against bookmakers i should havo been proposed. As the Bill • stands, it would seem that whilo the bookmaker, seeking refuge ; from tho street-betting" clauses, cannot find'refuge'' by going to a vacant racecourse, he can ■ find . refuge., on-.: a racecourse on ~ which 1 races aro in_ progress. The point may'cause "trouble. 1 ""•