BETTING TOTALISATOR ODDS. AUCKLAND, June 13.
The conviction which was entered by Mr Kettle, S.M., 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of two horse races, whereby they agreed to pay Melville Henry Quick a sum of money dependent upon the totalisator, was withdrawn by the Magistrate to-day. The charge was laid under the first part of section 4of the Gaming and Lotteries Act. Mr Mays appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Reed for the defendants. When the case was called upon to-day Mr Kettle said that after careful consideration and a perusal of the section of the act defendants were charged under he had come to the conclusion that the latter part of the section did not aj>ply to the offence of which they were charged, as he had on Monday considered it did. He would withdraw the conviction. He would, however, reopen the case, as it had not been fina-lly dealt with. He therefore adjourned tine case until a quarter-past 2 to allow Mr Mays to prepare argument on the second part of the section. After the adjournment Mr Mays applied .to umend 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 Melville Henry Quick, contract, or bargain, to pay money upon. a. horse race run at Takapuna, which said ey'ent was determined by the working of ihe totalisator upon the said horse race." He asked the magistrate for a conviction on the evidence as it stood. He submitted that a contract had Ijeen shown. She M^gistraTe said it was impossible that both parties could have agreed upon the terms. Mr Mays asked the magistrate, if he intended to dismiss, to 9o so without prejudice. Mr Reed admitted that th« magistrate had a right to amend, but pointed out the lateness of the amendment. The Magistrate said he would not permit an amendment at such a late stage of the proceedings. Even if he did grsmt it he did not think the evidence established a contract; but he would leave it open, and would not definitely say that it would be dismissed, under
the second part. The Magistrate said the fo] lowing were the facts: That the defendant were charged under the first part of section with two oftences. On the 28th of January horse race meeting was held at Takapuns and a totalisator was run, which was dul; granted and gazetted. The programme ie eluded two races — the Maiden Plate and th Zealandia Handicap. A horse named Golde: Sands was entered for the Plate -and Hohor for the handicap. The Maiden Plate starte< at a quarter to 12, and was won by Goldei Sands, and the Zealandia Handicap was woi by Hohoro. The dividend paid by the totali sator on Golden Sands was £10 16s 6d, and o: Hohoro's race £6 10s. Six minutes before th race was run Quick wrote out a telegram an< handed it in to the officer at the Telegrap] Office at Hamilton. The telegram was «<3 dressed to Barnetfc md Grant, Christchurch putting ;£lO on Golden Sands. The message however, was rot sent by the authorities unt; nine minutes past 1 o'clock, which was afte Golden Sands had won the race, and therefor defendants did not receive it until after th race was won. The same applied to the Zea landia Handicap. Defendants did not replj On March 14 defendants sent Quick a lette and cheque, which was eventually received b Quick and the cheque cashed. He believed i was a common custdm and understanding be tween bookmakers who lay totalisator odds an persons who bet on totalisator odds that i the latter win the bookmakers' limit is £7 10s On- these facts the Magistrate said he was o opinion that the race had been run before th proposal had reached the defendants, an< whatever acceptances there were no offence ha; been established under the first part of sectio: 4 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act. The cas would therefore be dismissed without prejudic to any proceedings that might be taken unde the latter part of the section.
BETTING TOTALISATOR ODDS. AUCKLAND, June 13.
Otago Witness, Issue 2675, 21 June 1905, Page 56
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Otago Witness. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.