PETER GRANT'S CASE.

Evening Star, Issue 11680, 12 February 1902, Page 6

PETER GRANT'S CASE.

In the appeal of Peter Grant against the magistrate's conviction for betting at totali- j sator odds His Honor Mr Justice Williams gave judgment this morning as follows: The only question in the present case is whether there wur any evidence upon which the accused could have been convicted of an offence under section 4 of the Gaming Act, 1894. It was contended in support of the rule, first, that there was no evidence of any bet at all; and secondly, that if there was such evidence, there was no evidence that the amount of the bet was to be dependent on the result of the working of the totalisator. Greany's letter was dated from Balclutha on the Ist of November. It referred to races that were to be run in Christchurch on the following day. It did not ask for a reply, but requested that the result of the races should be wired before five o'clock. Nor in the ordinary course of post could a reply have been sent to arrive before the races were run. The letter is as follows: " Please book me the following:— One pound Tortulla. New Zealand Cup; ten shillings Royal Artillery, Stewards' Handicap; ten shillings Porinia, Welcome Stakes; ten shUlings Petrovna, Riccarton Welter." That the letter is a proposal to enter into a wagering contract of some kind is a reasonable conclusion. The proposal was to be accepted by the entry by the addressee in his books of the specified amounts, horses, and races. It was evidently in the contemplation of the writer of the letter that if the addressee " booked" the items there was to be a complete agreement, and* it is a reasonable inference that he did not require the fact that they had been " booked " to be notified to him. The letter was found in the accused's office, and entries corresponding to the instructions in the letter were found in the accused's books. There was therefore evidence that the letter was addressed to the defendant, and that he had accepted tho proposals contained in it in the manner in which it was contemplated by the letter that they should be accepted. There is therefore, in my opinion, evidence that there was a bet made by the accused with Greany. Then is there any evidence that the amount of the bet was to be dependent upon the result of the working of the totalisator? The particular bet ihe defendant is charged with having made is that of ten shillings on Royal Artillery in the Stewards' Handicap. The letter, however, refers to other bets, and the writer evidently did not contemplate that there should be any difference between the conditions of the several bets. What the justices had to do was to determine the meaning of the entries against Greany on the pages in the defendant's books under the head of Stewards' Handicap. In order to do that they were justified in looking at the whole page and at all the entries. More than that, I think they were justified in looking at in a similar way the pages in the defendants books under the headings " New Zealand Cnp," " Welcome Stakes," and "Riccarton Welter." The justices had also before them the names of the first and second horse in each of these races and the dividends paid by the totalisator. Greany's letter wan evidently a projwsal for a wagering contract. Either it left the odds to be settled by the defendant —which is out of the question—or the terms of the bet were to be settled by some definite plan known both to Greany and the defendant. The problem which the justices'had to solve, was to determine from the materials legitimately before them whether there was prima" facie evidence that the plan was that the amount to be pud was to be dependent upon the result of the working of the totalisator. In order to determine this they were at liberty to exercise their common sense, and in so doing have come to * not unreasonable conclusion. Greany himself was called, and refused to give evidence on the ground that he might criminate rfirnself. That circumstance certainly did not weaken the other evidence against the defendant. I think, therefore, _ that there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie, case against the defendant which he has left unanswered, and that the rule for a prohibition must be discharged, with costs (six guineas).