TOTALISATOR LAW.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20761, 2 January 1931, Page 7

TOTALISATOR LAW.

BETS ON DOG RACES. ENGLISH MAGISTRATE'S VIEW. A decision that the use of a totalisator on a greyhound racing track whs not illegal was given by tho Liverpool deputy stipendiary magistrate, Mr. S. C. Addinsoll, on November 1. James Shand, of Liverpool, manager of tho greyhound racing track at Stanley Park, and thirty-five employees: had been summoned for alleged wagering with a hand totalisator in a place to which the public had access. The proceedings were taken under tho Vagrancy (Amendment) Act, 1873. At the last hearing Mr. 11. C. Essenhigh, prosecuting for tho police, .said that a hand totalisator was in use on the Stanley track, and of tho money taken 5 per cent, was deducted by the management for establishment charges, in addition to the fractions on each race. He contended that the use of tho totalisator was an offence against the Vagrancy Act, and that anybody so wagering was deemed to be a rogue and a vagabond. Air. "»V. Urotlner, defending; counsol, contended it was absurd to say that people who put a shilling on a dog at Stanley were rogues and vagabonds, but that if they put a shilling on a horse at a racecourse they were sportiing gentlemen.

The magistrate quoted decisions of the Court of Appeal in similar actions, and said that ho had come to the conclusion that tiie position of Mr. Shand and his assistants was that they got nothing from tho operations of the lotalisator. They were merely servants of the greyhound company, which was not summoned. "1 think," the magistrate added, "that the defendants may be fairly described as part of tlio machine by which money is collected from patrons of the lotalisator, apportioned and redistributed to the appropriate patrons. Therefore I hold that they did not wager w.ithin the meaning of the Act, and all tho summonses will bo dismissed."

Alternative summonses against all the accused of aiding and abetting persons, unknown, to bet were also dismissed.

Mr. Addinsell observed that the action of playing or betting was a personal activity as distinct from a more passive intorest in an event. The transactions at the lotalisator approximated more closely to a lottery than a bet. _ The prosecution had not produced evidence of any terms or conditions made between the company to show an agreement expressed or implied on the part of the patrons of the totalisator waiving any right they might have against the company. Nor had the prosecution satisfied him that there was any betting carried on at the totalisator, and therefore those summonses must also be dismissed. Tho magistrate said that he would be willing to state a case for appeal. He refused an application for costs on behalf of the defendants, saying that it had been a most proper case for the police to bring. ,