RACING INVESTMENTS

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 10959, 6 October 1928, Page 5

RACING INVESTMENTS

INTERESTING APPEAL CASE COURT RESERVES DECISION. Electric Telegrapn- Frees Association WELLINGTON, October 4. A case of considerable interest to the public generally, and in particular to the racing community, came before the Full Court to-day in an appeal by Harold Edward Goggin, secretary of the New Zealand AletropoliAan Racing Club, Christchurch, against a decision of a Christchurch magistrate, Air E. D. Mosley, in convicting him “that as a servant of a racing club, to wit, the Aletropolitan Racing Club, lie did unlawfully permit 'to be received an investment on a totalisator elsewhere than at the totalisator itself.” On the bench were Justices Beed, Maegregor, Blair and Osier. John Bruce Young, Detective-Sergeant, of Christchurch, was cited as informant, and for him appeared the seli-citor-general (Air A. C. Fair). Defendant was represented by Mr C. S. Thomas. At the hearing in the Magistrate’s Court it was adduced in evidence on behalf of the informant and admitted by defendant that besides the main totalisator the club used two separate windows, one in the members’ stand and one in the stewards’ stand, and that these windows were not connected by telegraphic comm.uiiication or by any other means with the main totalisator. Further, that- the window in th© members’ stand closed six minutes before the main totalisator, and the window in the stewards’ stand five miriutes before the closing of the main totalisator ; that some official came from the mam totalisator building and checked the tickets in each of these boxes and that all such sales were then recorded on the face of the main totalisator. The magistrate was of opinion that the word “totalisator as used in the Gaming Act, did not extend to cover the windows of the members’ and stewards’ stands, and accordingly convicted defendant of receiving investments contrary to the provisions of tlie Statute. Mr Thomas, in opening the case for defendant, outlined the method adopted bv trotting club authorities in establishing these boxes and objections raised by tlie police. “It is admitted,” he continued. “that moneys were received at these boxes, but it is our submission that these boxes are part of the totalisator and therefore there is no offence ’’ WELLINGTON, Last Night. Additional argument was heard before the Full Court to-day in the case in which H. E. Goggin. secretary of the Aletropolitan Trotting Club, appealed against the decision of Air E. D. Alosley, S.M., in convicting him. as a servant of the club, of permitting t Q be received investments on the totalisator at windows in the members’ and stewards’ Stands.

Mr Fair (Attorney-General), on behalf of Detective-Sergeant Young, stated that what the court had to decide was the meaning of the word "totalisator” ns defined in tlie act of 1998. So far as the interpretation of the statute was concerned, the word remained the same to-day as it did in 188, when The original act legalising the use of tlie totalisator was passed. AA Ytnesses for the <4 - fence in the court below bad spoken as to wliat the public considered the word t 0 mean to-day. but that was no guide as to what the legislature meant in 1881. The boxes complained of had none of the characteristics of the original totalisator, and in tlie light of the statute thev could not be considered portion of the totalisator. The essential feature was the mechanical device for indicating the amount laid on each horse, and incidentally the total amount laid on the race.

Mr Justice Reed remarked that he was at a loss to know why the police had brought the prosecution, for there was n 0 allegation of abuse against'the Aletropolitan Club. The court reserved its decision.