THE GAMING ACT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15301, 15 November 1911, Page 10

THE GAMING ACT.

INVITATIONS TQ BET. APPEAL DISMISSED. (Pta Uhitid Pnzaa Association.) WELLINGTON* November 14. " The evidence does not point to the solitary fact of a.single document posted to C. A. Mowlem, but it does point to the ifsue >jjf a circular to an unknown number of persons interested in receiving it. At first, sight this evidence may appear slight, but the small factors all point in tne same direction, and the appellants had the opportunity of answering it. It is their failure to give .evidcncs in denial of any of the facts, or in explanation of the matters telling prima . facie against them, that gives cogency to this evidence and justifies tho conclusion. For these reasons 1 hold that the appeal must bo dismissed with costs, £5 55," oaid Mr Justice Crmpman to-day in dismissing the appeal of Scott and Mattindale against a conviction for a breach of soction 30 of tho Gaining Act. The appeal was from a. decision of -Mr W. U. lliddell, • S.M. The appellants wero charged under section 30 of "Tlie Gaming Act, 1908," with having published oertain documents which contained a notification on behalf of Scott and' Martindale as to betting on horse races, to be run at Auckland on June' 3, 19li, and June 5, 1911—the Great Northern Hurdle Race and tho Great Northern Steeplechase. The magistrate convicted the _ appellants, who challenged the conviction oil several grounds. Thees raised' the questions whether there is' evidenoi th&t the document in question was published; whether it La proved , that it is a document such as is aimed at by tho section; whether ■ there is any proof that it was published by or with tho authority of tins appellants. , The document was marked "A. B. C.," and tho question was whether the magistrate was justified in holding that it came from Scott and Martindale. Mr Wilford (counsel for defendants), at the original ' hearing, said bo did not deny. that the document had reference to "betting on horse races, but denied that, his. clients published it, or that it was a document within the meaning of tho eectioii. It was not known where the letter was posted. It was received by Fred. Mowlem, .of Palmprston North, but addressed to his eob, C. L. Mowlem. There wa6 no evidence that defendants had posted or were parties to the posting of thee© documents. The despatch of 6uch a. card would not be publishing within tho meaning of the section. The material- part of section 30 is aimed at any person, who prints, publishes, sells, or publicly exhibits any newspaper or other document which contains any advertisement or notification by or on behalf of any person, club, or association as to betting on any horse race to be run. In his judgment his Honor said documents included business cards, on which'was printed "Scott and-Martindale, woolbrolters, Wellington," ind'do'uble'card, or doublo event, tvith the letters A. B. C. in one corner. Theso. letters appear in the' same position in No£2 and 3. It was proved that tho appellants are bookmakers and commission agents resident in Wellington. " I must, 6aid his Honor, "on the evidenco regard the term ' woolbrokers' as a blind. It is proved-and found to be a fact that the letters A. B. C. on a racing chart produced are a sign which is the appellants' business as bookmakers. I 'That is sufficient to identify card No. 1 in tho absence of any evidence to the contrary." It was proved that the double chart No. 1 related to two races mentioned in tho information. Any person,who ieceived from a bookmaker this card would understand it as a standing quotation of the specified odds, giving lura a choice of .500 separate bets. Anyone who received it and knew Scott and Martindale, and had done business with them, and knew that they were A. B. C., would know or assume "that such a quotation involving an offer was made to nim by them. The: ■ man to whohi the documents were ad- '. dressed said he knew defendants personally. This made it plain that they know ihirfy.jusVais he knew them. As for the other cards, Nos. 2 and 3, it was impossible to say that they wero anything else than double cards, His Honor then dealt with the extra definition of the word " published." The evidence ought not to be too narrowly read. It must bo interpreted aa common-sense people would understand it. When a business circular was proved to have rcached one person's hands it was a fair inference, that it had been circulated. This document- was acircular, and if this eyidencd were-before a jury it would be entitled to find that it had been circulated ih the" ordinary senre by a business firm' to its confidential customers. "Then is it proved to be such a document as is,aimed at by section 30!" eeked his Honor. " I see no reason to doubt that it is. It fulfils conditions of that section by containing a notification respecting a horse raoo or hor«j races to-be run. It is manifestly issued by or on behalf of some person,-and the' evidenco is that it purports to emanate from the appellants' firm of bookmakers." The more important question is whether thero is sufficient evidence to justify the magistrate's conclusion that it was published by the appellants. It is evident that the document has been prepared by a skilled hand.' It is more probable that-it. hasbeen, compiled with great care, and by someone possessed of an intimate knowledge'of the subject.' A considerable time has been in all probability occupied in its preparation. An equal amount of labour bestowed on a time-table or a similar scheme involving both calculation and judgment would.produce a document of considerable value. " One witness admitted that he had printed double charts for appellants, and had done some printin" for them for years." After reviewing firrther points, his Honor dismissed the appeal in the words of tho opening passage, with £5 5s costs. Mr T. M. Wilford appeared for the appellants, and Mr T. Neavc for the respondent.