BETTING CASE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 14 June 1924, Page 7

BETTING CASE.

DECISION UPHELD. (by TELEGRAPH—PRESS ASSOCIATION.') NAPIER June 13. An appeal case of some interest was heard at the Supreme Court before Mr Justice MacGregor, when J. W. Barrie appealed against the decision of the magistrate in favour of J. M. Brown in a claim to recover £33 13s 6d. Barrie gave Brown £5 to put on Ore Ore in the Grand National Hurdles. The horse was placed second and paid £4 14s, and respondent did not hand over the money. Subsequently respondent agreed to put £lO of the Ore Ore dividend on Nicomar in the Hunt Cup at ’Waikato, and Nicomar paid £lO odd. To effect a settlement appellant agreed to accept the Ore Ore dividend and £lO which appellant put on Muraahi at Wellington for Brown', but Brown did not pay up. The defence held that the transaction was illegal under section 53 of the Gaming Act. Mr. Mason, (for appellant) said that if the magistrate’s ruling was upheld the people who could not afford £1 could not legally hot, as they would he liable to a penalty if they made up tickets with others. His Honor: That is so. A person who cannot afford to bet should not go to races. His Honor upheld the magistrate’s decision. It was quite dear that the money claimed was won on the totalisator for respondent, and should have been paid over; but the transaction was an illegal one under section 53, and both parties contravened the statute. Maybe the Act would cause inconvenience, but people so placed would have to give up betting