JUDGMENT IN THE TOTALISATOR CASE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 8151, 23 April 1887, Page 6

JUDGMENT IN THE TOTALISATOR CASE.

+ [Per Press Association.] DUNEDIN, April 22. Mr Carew, in giving judgment in the totalisator case, said : It was settled in law that a person who deposits money with a stakeholder on a wagering contract can recover, whether the event comes off or not, provided notice is given to the stakeholder before he has paid the stakes to the winner. The betting out of which this case arises is legal in the sense that it is not prohibited by law ; but, nevertheless, it is a wagering contract, and unquestionably Section 33 of the Gaming Act is not binding except as a matter of conscience on either party. 1 can see no distinction between legal and illegal bets, because Section 83 applies to all contracts or agreements by way of gaming or wagering. The effect of Sections 8,4 G, and 47 is to legalise the use of the totalisator under certain conditions, but they do not operate on Section 33 to make wagers by means of the totalisator. Defendants contended that the persons who worked the machines were turf agents, but bis Worship thinks such a conclusion can only be .arrived at by distorting the facts. It keems to him dear that when a person at the pigeon hole of the totalisator names a horse, gives money to the persona in charge, and receives a ticket, it is understood that he backs the horse named, that the money he deposited is his stake, and the ticket be receives is a vouchor that he did so. He makes the bet himself. , The runners of the totalisator register the bet, and hold the stake, and for this and the privilege of using their monopoly, they charge a percentage from the winners. This being his view of the position of the parties, the case of Reid v. Anderson does not apply. Judgment for plaintiff tor £23 and costs.'