PUBLICATION OF DIVIDENDS.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 18 December 1925, Page 5

PUBLICATION OF DIVIDENDS.

approximate: amounts not ALLOWED. AN IMPORTANT DECISION. (BY TELKGIIAPU PEESS ASSOCIATION.) WELLINGTON, Dec. 17. Judgment was delivered by Mr. E. Page, S.M., this afternoon in the case in which the police prosecuted Blundell Bros., Ltd., proprietorsl of the Evening Posit, in respect to the publication. of statements as to dividends paid by the totalisator or as to ’Starting prices in certain races at th© Wellington Racing Olub’.s meeting at Trentham on October 24 last.

The magistrate ordered a conviction on the ground! that there 'had been a breach of the statute in regard to the publication- both of the dividend and the starting price. The -facts, said Mr Page, were admitted, and the question to be decided was whether the material published constituted a breach of the provisions of tilie Act. The section was very wide in its terms. It prohibited the publication of “any statement as to the dividend paid on investments on the totalisator” or “as to starting prices.'-’ With regard to dividends, the magistrate said: “I think there can be no doubt that the report published by the defendants contains statements as to the dividends paid. In the first race, for example, the dividends paid on the totalisator for the first and second horses were £l2 4s and £1 6s 6d respectively. Defendant’s paper .states that Askaii returned ‘a dividend of over £l2, while Merry -Singer’s backers showed a small profit.’

“Dividends in other races are somewhat similarly described. It is true that the exact amount of the dividend is nowhere stated, but tile approximate amount is given. Askari’s dividend is said to be ‘over £l2,’ and in my opinion that i« a ‘statement as to the dividend paid.’ Similarlyin the account of each of the succeeding races defendant's paper contains ‘statements as to the dividends paid.’

“With regard ito starting prices, it was contended by counsel that the statute, which was passed at a -time when tihc business of bookmaking was not an unlawful one, referred only to starting prices as quoted by bookmakers. I do nob agree with this view. I think that, the words include starting prices as shown oil the totalisator on the close of business. That is to say, the price that -a house will pay on- the totalisator for winning or running second.

“Some of fche defendant's references in this connection do not, in niv opinion, contravene the statute. Thus, statements that ‘Captain Santo, Sir Fanciful and Merry Singer earned most money,’ and that ‘Tiega wound up favourite, with plenty of support fox- Mandane, Rivalry and Beacon Light,’ though they contain references to the betting market, cannot, I. think, fairly be said to b© ‘statements as to starting prices. o The starting prices arc neither najrecl nor indicated. There is nothing from which they can even approximately be calculated. “On the other hand, in describing the fouitbh the defendants say : ‘Bi.sox was an even money favourite.’ 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 iix regard to the publication both of the dividends and starting price, arid the defendants must be convicted.” Mr P. S. K. Macassey intimated that he was willing to withdraw two of the other three informations, and he woxxld leave the penalty in His Worship's hands. He did not regard the case as a test one, as the offence was too clear for argument. 'Mr. H. F. O’Leai-y, 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, Blundell Bros, scrupulously refrained from making any further reference which could be regarded'as a breach of the Act. They looked upon the case as a test, as for a considerable time newspaper proprietors had been uncertain, as to how fax- they could go, axxd as to whether the Act merely prohibited the publication of the exact dividend. Mr. O’Leary said his clients had no desire to flout the law. and he submitted that the case should be dealt with a.s a test case.

On the first change the Magistrate conviced and fined the defendants £5 and costs. On the second charge they were convicted -and. discharged. Mr Macassey withdrew the other two informations.