THE GAMING ACT, 1894.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1180, 12 October 1894, Page 22

THE GAMING ACT, 1894.

The references made to the Gaming Bill in these columns from time to time, since the Bill was first introduced to Parliament by Sir Robert Stout, has prepared the sporting community for the principal clauses, especially those which affect bookmakers —or those who lay totalisator odds—and backers cf horses. Of course, the clause referring to the reduction of race meetings does not come into force until the 31st July, 1895, but that portion of the Bill referring to totalisator betting has already become law. The Bill has been framed in such a manner that no opportunity has been left for those, engaged in totalisator betting or those acting as agents to drive the proverbial coach through any part of the Act, or to get round corners, as it were, and evade the operation of the various clauses. Many have asked, and others profess not to know, what object Sir Robert Stout had in view in suppressing the totalisator “shop” betting, as it appeared to them that, as the Bill made provision for the secretary or other officer of a racing club receiving investments for the totalisator, it simply meant transferring the money from the “shops” to the racing clubs, and would not reduce betting to any great extent. But the fact that racing clubs may appoint agents to receive investments clearly shows that it is not the actual suppression of betting that is aimed at, but the snuffing out of totalisator betting shops. The preamble of the Bill states in plain language that “ Section 4 is designed to cut at the root of two of these poisonous fungus growths that have sprung up in connection with our legalised method of betting by means of the totalisator, viz., the practice known as ‘tote-betting/ or laying totalisator odds, and the practice of turf commission agents selling totalisator tickets.” If those formerly engaged as turf commission agents care to run the risk of the penalties attached to the clause relating to “tote-betting,” that is their lookout; but I have lately met several of the sporting fraternity who have been in the habit of placing their commissions in the hands of local bookmakers who seem to think that if they tender money for investments on the totalisator, and the “agents” are foolish enough to accept it (and run the risk of “getting three months,” or fined A2O) that it does not concern them as backers, but clause 4 of the Bill goes very near to prescribing* something “ lingering ” in the way of punishment, and a careful study of the Bill, and this clause in particular, will be found interesting reading. Clause 4 reads as follows: — Any 'person making or entering into a bet upon the result of a horse race whereby he agrees to pay to the other party to the same bet if the latter should win the same a sum of money, the amount of which shall be dependent upon the result of the working of the totalisator on the said horse race, and any person not being a person lawfully conducting or employed in the working of a totalisator who sells or offers for sale, and any person who purchases from him any ticket , .card or thing entitling or purporting to entitle the purchaser or holder thereof to any interest m the result of the working of the totalisator on any horse race, or makes any contract or bargain of any kind to pay and receive money upon any event determined or to be mined by the result of the working of the totalisator on any horse race, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds , or to both imprisonment and fine. The first race ireiting held along this way sines clause 4 of the Gaming Liu bas

come into force, was the Rangitikei Racing Club’s Spring Meeting, and it must be generally admitted that the stringency of the Gaming Bill had the desired effect of forcing a larger proportion of the totalisator investments through the proper channel, and the club had the satisfaction of putting through the totalisator L 771 more than for the corresponding meeting last year. This enterprising club judiciously advertised in the New Zealand Times, and consequently received considerable assistance through our sporting columns in giving prominence to the fact the club would receive money for investment on the totalisator. In conversation with the popular secretary, Mr Maclean, he informed me that he had received telegraphic money orders, which represented over LIOO more than the club had hitherto invested for clients at a distance. This should be cheerful news for other racing clubs, and I have every confidence in saying that the credit balances of many clubs will be largely augmented this season. As far as I have been able to learn the main principle of the Gaming Bill, has boen respected by our local bookmakers, and wisely too, and “ tote-odds ” now appear to be a thing of the past, and all the “ shops ” or “ offices,” formerly used for this purpose confine their transactions to legitimate straight-out betting on any event. Of course the “ mushroom ” class of bookmaker, who has no lawful visible means of support, and little or no fear of the penalties attached to an infringement of clause 4, may get hold of an odd pound or two from some of our country cousins, but our principal bookmakers have closed down on the tote-betting. Straight-out wagering on any events but the principal handicaps of the Colony has been a dead letter for some years, and it will require time to educate horsey folk to this system of betting again, as many are afraid the horse they wish to back may pay a better price on the totalisator, and as the average racing man like 3 his “pound of flesh,” he will probably continue to place his investments with the machine; but on the other hand there are a number of backers who do not care to go to the trouble of wiring money away, and to them the straight-out betting is a convenience.