CREDULOUS PEOPLE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3864, 3 April 1928, Page 11

CREDULOUS PEOPLE.

PROTECTION FROM TIPSTERS. <( AUCKLAND, March 28. “ Many years ago it was found necessary to protect credulous people from tipsters and sharpers, and this case differs from others of the same class, only in that the fee is about 10 times more than the usual tipster asks,” said Mr F ! Hunt, S.M., in the Police Court in imposing a fine of £25 upon Edwin William Warren, charged with sending a circular to G. A. Haines with intent to induce him to apply for advice for the purpose of wagering on horse races. In his written judgment the Magistrate said the or cular bore title of “The New Zealand Reinvestment Company for the Elimination Method of Scientific Totalisator Speculation.’ The method was described as the production of a master mind, and was characterised as the greatest racing discovery of all time. The average < f success was stated to be “ more stable than the law of averages.” It was stated that backers who had used the system had received 40 per cent, of their investments, while one investor with £3O capital, betting in amounts of £lO at all meetings over a certain period, would have shown a profit of £2200, or a return of 730 per cent, on the original outlay The price of -the method was £lO xOs. Counsel had laid stress on the point that the accused did not advise illegal betting with bookmakers, but only investment oi the totalisator. It was, however, wrong to send a circular offering to give advice on a horse race, whether the bet was to be made with a bookmaker or on the machine.

' 1 am mentioning this point, because it is clear that the purchaser of informa tion could not be present at all race meet ings set out in the postscript to the circu lar, for certainly two or three would be held on the same day,” the Magistrate added. “He would therefore have to use a bookmaker, or have an agent in town to put his money on the machine. Both of these methods are illegal. It is surprising to note that this man shou'd not operate his own scheme and turn £3O into £2200, as his first circular says. Evidently it is easier to get £lO lCs from 200 simple people.”

A fine of £25 with £3 13s costs was imposed. Security for appeal was fixed at £lO 10s.