TIPSTER FINED

Grey River Argus, 29 March 1928, Page 5

TIPSTER FINED

EXPLOITER OF FOOLS Circular Supplies Proof AUCKLAND, March 28. “Many years ago it was found necessary to protect credulous people from tipsters and sharpers, and this case diff rs from others of the same class only in that the fee is about ten times more than the usual tipster asks,” said Mr F. K. Hunt, S.M., in the Police Court, in imposing a fine of £25 upon Edwin Willerson Warren, charged with being the sender of a circular to G. A. Haines, with intent to induce him to apply for advice for the purpose of wagering on a horse race.

In a w.itten judgment, the Magistrate said the circular bore the title of “The New Zealand Reinvestment Company. for the elimination method of scientific totalisator speculation.” Tho method was described as the production of a master mind, and was characterised as the greatest racing discovery of all time. The average of success was stated to be “more stable than the law of averages.” It was stated that backers who had used the system had received 40 per cent, on their investments, while one investor with £3O capital, betting in amounts of £lO at all meetings over a certain period, would Jiave shown a profit of £2200, or a return of 730 per cent, on tho original outlay. The price of the method was £lO 10s.

Counsel, said the Magistrate, had laid stress on the point that the accused did not advise illegal betting with bookmakers, but only investment on the totalisator. It was, however, wrong to send a circular offering to give advice on a horse race, whether a bet was to be made with a bookmaker or on the ma ch ing.

l\lr Hunt continued. “I am mentioning this point because it is clear the purchaser of information could not be present at all the race meetings set out in the postscript to the circular, for certainly two or three would be held on the same day.”

The Magistrate added: “The purchaser would therefore have to use a bookmaker. or have an agent in the town to put his money on the machine. Both of these methods are illegal. Tt is surprising to note that this man should not operate his own scheme and turn £3O into £2200, as his first circular says. Evidently it is easier to get £lO 10s from 200 simple people.” A fine of £25 with £3 13s costs, was imposed. Security for appeal was fixed at £lO Il's. ' ,