LAYING THE ODDS

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1738, 21 June 1905, Page 16

LAYING THE ODDS

SOME LEGAL POINTS. AUCKLAND, June 13. The conviction which was entered by Mr Kettle at the Police Court on Monday against Barnett and Grant, a firm of Christchurch bookmakers, for having made two bets upon the result of two horse races, Avherebv they agreed to pay Melville Henry Quick a sum of money dependent upoon the totalisator, was withdrawn by the Magistrate to-day. The charge was laid under the first nart of section 4 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act. Mr May appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Reed for defendants.

When the case was called upon today Mr Kettle said that after careful consideration and perusal of the section of the act defendants Avere charged under he had come to the conclusion that the latter part of the section did not apply to the offence of which they Avere charged, as he had on Monday considered it did. He Avould withdraw the conviction. He would, however, reopen the case, as it had not been finally dealt with. He, therefore, adjourned the hearing until a ouarter-past 2 to allow Mr May to preoare argument on the second part of the section.

After the adjournment Mr May applied to amend the charge to come under the second part of section 4. which would read "Barnett and Grant not being persons lawfully conducting or employed in the working of a totalisator did make a bet with Henry Melville Quick, and contract or bargain to pay money upon a horse race run at Takapuna, which said event was determined by the working of the totalisator upon the said horse race.” He asked the Magistrate for a conviction on the evidence as it stood. He submitted that the contract had been shown.

The Magistrate said it was impossible that both parties could have agreed upon the terms. Mr May asked the Magistrate if he intended to dismiss to do so wtihout prejudice. Mr Reed admitted that the Magistrate had a right to amend, but pointed out the lateness of the amendment.

The Magistrate said he would not permit amendment at such a late stage of the proceeding. Even if he did grant it, he did not think the evidence established a contract. He would leave it open, and would not definitely say that it would he dismissed. Under the second part the facts were : —That the defendants were charged under the first part of section 4 with two offences; on January 28th a horse race meeting was held at Takapuna, and the totalisator was run; the programme included two races, the Maiden Plate and Zealandia Handicap : a horse named Golden Sands was entered for the Plate and Hohoro for the Handicap; the Maiden Plate started at a quarter to 12 and was won by Golden Sands, and the Zealandia Handicap was won by Hohoro: the dividend paid by totalisator on Golden Sands was £lO 16s 6d, and on H or olio’s race £6 10s; six minutes before the race was run Quick wrote out a telegram and handed it in to the officer of the Telegraph Office at Ham'l ton ; the telegram was addressed to “Barnett and Grant, Christchurch putting £lO on Golden Sands: the message, however, was not sent by the authorities until nine minutes past l o’clock, wh’ch was after Golden Sands had won the race, ana. therefore, defendants did not receive it until after the race was won ; the same applied to the Zealandia Handicap; defendants did not reply; on March 14th defendants sent Quick a letter and a cheque, which was eventuallv received bv Quick and the cheque cashed. He believed it was a common custom and understanding between bookmakers who lay totalisator odds and persons who bet on totalisator odds that if the latter wins the bookmaker’s limit was £7 10s. On these facts the Magistrate said he was of opinion that the race had been run before the proposal had readied defendants, and, whatever acceptance there was, no offence had been established under the first part of section 4 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act.

The case would be dismissed without prejudice to any proceeuings tfiafc miglit be taken under the latter part of the section.