PUBLISHING "TOTE” DIVIDENDS

Evening Star, Issue 19126, 18 December 1925, Page 10

PUBLISHING "TOTE” DIVIDENDS

AND STARTING PRICES WELLINGTON 'POST' FINED [Per United Press Association.] ■WELLINGTON, December 17. Judgment was delivered by Mr E. Page, S.M., ibis afternoon in the case in wnich the police prosecuted Messrs Blundell Bros., Ltd., proprietors of the ‘Evening Post,’ in respect to the publication of statements in regard to dividends paid by tho totalisator, or relative to tho starting prices in certain races at the Wellington Pacing Club’s Mooting at Trentbam on October 24. The Magistrate ordered a conviction on tho grounds that there had been a breach of the Statute in; regard to the publication both of a dividend and a starting price. The facts, said Mi Page, were admitted, and tho question to be decided was whether tho material published constituted a breach of tho provisions of the 'Act. The section was very "'ido in its terns, ami it prohibited publication of any statement as to a dividend paid on the investments on the totalisator or of the starting price. With regard to the dividends, he said: “ I think there can be no doubt that the report published by the do 1 - fondants contains statements as to tho dividends paid in the first race, lor example, the dividends paid on the totalisator for tho first and second Worses were £l2 4s and £1 6s Gd /respectively. Defendants’ paper sts ics that Askari returned a dividend of over £l2, 'while Merry Singer’s backers showed a small profit. The dividends on the other races are somewhat similarly described. It is true that the exact amount of a dividend is nowhere stated, but tho approximate amount is given. Askari’s dividend is said to be ‘ over £l3,’ and, in my opinion, that is a statement as to the dividend paid. Similarly in the account of each of the succeeding races defendants’ paper contained statements as to dividends paid. “ With regard to starting prices, it was contended by counsel that the Statute, which was passed at a time when the business of bookmaking was not an unlawful one, referred only to starting prices as quoted by bookmakers. I do not agree with this view. I think that tho words include starting prices as shown on the totalisator on the close of its business—that is to say, the price that tho horse will pay on the totalisator for winning or running second. Some of the defendants’ references in this connection do not, in my opinion, contravene the Statute. Thus the statements that ‘ Captain Sarto, Sir Fanciful, and Merry singer carried most of the money,’ and that ‘ Tiega wound up favorite, with plenty of support for Mandane, Rivalry, and Beacon Light,’ though they contain references to the betting market, cannot, I think, fairly bo said to be ‘ statements as to starting prices.’ Starting prices are neither hamed nor indicated. There is nothii from which they can even approximately be calculated.- On tho other hand, in describing the fourth race, defendants say ‘ Bisox was an evenmoney favorite.’ This is a definite statement of the price at which the horse was starting, and comes within the Statute.

“ There has, therefore, been a breach of the Statute in regard to tbo publication, both of the dividend and /the rlarting price, and defendants must be convicted.”

Mr P. S. K. Macassey intimated that he was willing to withdraw two of the other three informations, and ho would leave the penalty in His Worship’s hands. Ho did not regard the base as a test one, as the offence was too clear for argument. Mr H. F. O’Leary, who appeared for the defendants, said that after October 24, when it was known that the police authorities had taken notice of the statements published, Messrs Blundell Bros, had scrupulously refrained from making any further reference which could do regarded as a breach of (fch© Act, They looked upon the case. a test, because for a considerable) time newspaper proprietors had been uncertain respecting how far they could go, and whether the Aot merely prohibited the publication of the exact dividend. Mr O’Leary said his clients had no desire to flout the law, and hd submitted the case should be dealt with as a test.

On the first charge the Magistrate convicted and fined defendants £5 and (costs, and on the second charge they/ were convicted and discharged. Mr Macassey withdrew the other two informations.

PRESS COMMENT LEGISLATION SHOULD BE REVIEWED, tSmacrai to the ‘ St.vp./] CHRISTUM U ItCH, December 18, The ‘ Lyttelton Times,’ in an editorial, says:—“ The conviction of the proprietors of a Wellington newspaper on a charge of publishing statements regarding dividends or starting prices in races at _ the Wellington meeting, draws attention to a piece of legislation that should be reviewed. The intention of Parliament in prohibiting the publication of information in regard to dividends or starting prices was to confine betting to the racecourses of the dominion. The futility of the attempt is well known. There is not a small town in the country where the results and particulars as to dividends are not available within an hour or two, probably less, of the event being run. The only effect of the legislation has been to drive betting underground. It has not impeded the operations of the bookmaker, but rather has assisted him by making him practically the sole source of information in these matters. Dividends paid on a race are legitimate news, and the prohibition of their publication is indefensible. The legislation should have been removed from the (Statute Book years ago.”