Untitled

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 4897, 25 April 1887, Page 2

The decision given by Mr Carew, tho Resident Magistrate of Dunedin, in the totalisator case last weok sounds the death knell of the popular betting machine of Now Zealand racecourses. The case, as we make out from the reported evidence was briefly as follows : —A Mr W. Stuart attended the races held on the Forbury course last February, and invested £25 in the totalisator on one event, and the same sum -on a subsequent race, winning on both occasions. On tho Consolation race Mr Stuart invested £23 on a horse named Mirella. This horse did not win, and as soon as " tho numbers were up," but before any dividend had been paid out, Mr Stuart served tho man in chargo of tho machine with a demand for the return of the £23. As soon after as possible, and still before any money had been paid out, Mr Stuart served a similar demand on the acting secretary of the Jockey Club. It is almost needless to say that Mr Stuart did not, receive his money back, and he consequently sued Charles Roberts, who was in charge of the machine, for the amount. Now, although the totalisator is legalised to a certain extent, it is not so legalised as to remove its transactions from the common law on gaming and wagering. This is the view taken by the Dunedin magistrate, and it is supported by good authorities. But tho result is this that anyone can go on to a racecourse armed with a demand on the lessee of the totalisator, to be used in tbo event of the horse that he backs losing the race. The moic this point, of law is generally Imown, the more probably it will be acted upon, and this knowledge will deter many from investing in a machine the output payments of which would be dependent on the number of losers demanding the return of their investments.