The Evening Star FRIDAY, MAY 6, 1927. PUNTERS CUESSING.

Evening Star, Issue 19549, 6 May 1927, Page 6

The Evening Star FRIDAY, MAY 6, 1927. PUNTERS CUESSING.

It is safe to say, that the proceedings in Iho Magistrate’s Court in Christchurch yesterday were of very special vigaiiinance to a considerable section of the public right throughout New Zealand. Nearly seven years ago Parliament passed an Act which ever since has operated spasmodically and even then only one-sidedly. That Act declared bookmaking to be unlawful, a.nd declared anyone summarily convicted of it to be liable to a £SOO fine or two years’ imprisonment. But it also went further in an entirely new direction; it stated; “Every person who makes a bet with a bookmaker commits an offence against this Act, and is liable on summary conviction to a fine t f £IOO or to imprisonment 'for a term of sis months.” This new broom had such a wide sweep prescribed for it that it was thought necessary that the ' Act should specifically reaffirm the legality of “ investments on the totalisator also that it should specifically legalise bets between two persons neither of whom is a bookmaker. But it very rigorously circumscribes the extent of such friendly wagers. One such bet on one particular event is the legal limit, and should a person even offer to wager on any particular event with more than one person he falls within the category of a bookmaker.

Thus years ago the betting public knew exactly where it stood in the eyes of tho law. But this public at once showed that it believed the law to have one at least of its eyes shut. It continued to bet with the bookmaker, both in doubles and straight-out It continued to use State services of communication. in defiance of the perhaps impotent State, in the placing of its bets. There was no difficulty in placing them. So long as there exists a punter in ono part of the dominion, who has a fancy for a race and some money to emphasise it, all considerations of time, space, and legality are annihilated. That was the position in 1920, when tho Act was passed. Much was hoped by its sponsors. In explaining it tho Minister in charge (the Hon. Mr Anderson) said; “The bookmakers themselves make an open boast that it is impossible to ceviso a scheme that could prevent them from carrying on their calling. They may be of that opinion, but. at any rate, we are going to have a trial of strength to see whether the State can regulate or stop their efforts, or whether they can laugh the whole of our efforts to scorn.' Up till yesterday the bookmakers did laugh tho Government’s efforts to scorn. The main reason why /was perfectly obvious. The law thought to scare the bookmakers’ clients, and the clients declined to take that threat seriously.. The clients were perfectly right—-up to March 18. 1927. Over six years is a long period of grace. With perfect equanimity, apd perhaps in some sore cases with feelings not totally those of displeasure, punters beheld tho occasional prosecution of bookmakers. They knew that, whatever happened, they could easily find accommodation, if not in the same old place, then elsewhere. As to the bookmakers, they are used to the risks of the game. And they are not slow to estimate those risks and to minimise them. That is the cardinal essence of their calling. At first they exercised themselves of their stilhexisting right of trial by jury, and, in sporting phrase, their * information was good.” Then judges began to comment” on tne glaring inconsistency of form shown by juries in these cases, and recourse to tho higher court became the exception. Bookmakers found that in the lower court the dreaded alternative of gaol was seldom indicted. To a monetary penalty they could look-forward with composure. Far less was it to be dreaded than some successful plunge on the part of a client. So for over six years tho boast of the Government has remained a boast. Truly the Government has been patient. And so have those who instigated the Act of 1920, and these comprise those who abhor racing and those to whom life without it would be empty. But signs of impatience have long since been observed from all quarters. Tbeie have been pithy inquiries by many newspaper correspondents as to why prosecutions ot bookmakers were so few, and why tho targets were so small. There was also some months ago an article in the leading racing organ pointing out the existence and comprehensiveness of the Act of 1920, the whole duty of tho authorities, and .the failure of tho authorities to do that duty. Then tho blow fell. Tho unused edge of the two-edged Gaming 'Act fell this time. A prominent Christchurch bookmaker’s accounts were impounded, and these were submitted to expert scrutiny. Lists of clients were compiled. * The first selection from those lists were summoned to appear in the court at Christchurch yesterday. Fines ranging from £2O down to £3 wore inflicted on defendants resident in all parts of tho dominion. A large number of other prosecutions will follow, adds the Police Court report. That is the chief reason for the statement from the same source that “ considerable interest was taken in the cases.” The filling of tho public benches at tho rear of the Christchurch court may be taken as emblematic of the strained attention of clients of this bookmaking establishment at least. If tho flutter, due to police investigation, in rural parts of this province of Otago serves as a guide, their number is not inconsiderable. If such a stir results from tho raiding of only ono firm, how would it spread if other firms were raided and similar information obtained? That information, it is rumored, has its ludicrous side. Many punters paid sufficient respect to the existence of tho Act of 1920 to conduct their betting correspondence under fictitious names coupled with reliable addresses. It may or may not prove a safe haven of retreat from present or future molests tion. But one important factor in the campaign that has been inaugurated is that the body which is chiefly credited with tho instigation of tho legislation of 1920 is palpably active in trying to save that legislation from remaining a dead letter. It is in a far stronger position in seeking to have existing law enforced than it was in the mere promotion of that legislation. As to its bona fides, we may remind *he public that within its own jurisdiction it prohibits betting, with bookmakers. Trainers' and jockeys’ licenses are granted on the express condition that .the holders will neither directly nor in-

directly make any»wager with a bookmaker. It is only consistent that through Parliament it should • seek to place the same inhibition on mere followers of racing, not only for the good of the game, but for that of those participating, in it in any capacity. The trouble is that tho public is not always tolerant of measures for its own good.