DUNEDIN BETTING CASES.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 9379, 18 February 1902, Page 3

DUNEDIN BETTING CASES.

CONVICTION UPHELD

A case of much interest in sporting circles was finally decided at Dunediu lost.week, when Mr Justice Williams upheld the conviction of the Magistrate in the case against Peter Grant, bookmaker, of laying totalisator odds. TKe decision, which is a very important one, read as follows:—"The only question in the present case is whether there was any evidence upon which accused could have been convicted of an offence under section 4of the Gaming Act, 1894. It was contended in support of the rule (1) that there was no evidence of any bet at all, and (2) if there was such evidence, there was no evidence that the amount' of the bet was to be dependent on the result of the working of the toUilisator. Greany's letter was dated from Balclutha on the Ist of November. It referred to races that were to be run. in Christchurch on the following day. It did not ask for a reply but requested that the result of the races should be telegraphed before five o'clock, nor in the ordinary course of post could a rep'v have been sent and arrived before the faces were run. The letter ]S as follows:—'Please book me the following- One pound Tortulla, New Zealand Clip; ten shillings Royal Artillery, Stewards' Handicap: ten shillings Porirua, Welcome Stakes; ten shillings Petrovna, Riccarton Welter.' That letter is a proposal to enter into a wagering contract of some kind. It is a reasonable conclusion that the proposal was to be accepted by an entry by the addressee in his books of the specified amounts, the horses and the races. It was evidently in the contemplation of the writer of the letter that if the addressee 'booked' the items, there was to be a complete agreement. It is a reasonable inference that he did not require the fact that they had been 'booked' to be notified to him. The letter was found in the accused's office ; entries corresponding to the instructions in the letter were found in the accused's books. Therewas, therefore, eviSence that the letter was addressed to the defendant, and that he had accepted the proposals contained in it. in the manner which it wuk contemplated by the writer they should be accepted. There is, therefore, in my opinion, evidence that there was a bet made

by the accused with Greany. The. particular bet the defendant is'charged with having made is of ten shillings on Royal Artillery in the Stewards' Handicap. The letter,.however, refers to other bets. The writer evidently did not contemplate there should be any difference between the several bets.. "What the Justices had to do was to determine the meaning of the entries againsi Greany on the page in defendant's books, under the head 'Stewards' Handicap.' In order to do thati they wore justified in looking over the whole page at all the entries. More than that, I think they were justified in looking at, in similar way, the pages in defendant's books under the headings 'New Zealand Cup,' 'Welcome Stakes,' and Riccarton Welter.' The Justices bad also before them the names of the first and second horses of each of these races, and the dividends paid by the totalisaior. Greany's letter was evidently a proposal for wagering a contract.. Either it left the odds to be settled by the,defenda.nt, which is out of the question, Qr the terms of the bet were to be settled by some definite plan known, to both Greany and defendant. The problem which the Justices had to solve was to determine from the material* legitimately before them whether there was prima facie evidence that the phiiß was that the amount to be paid was to be dependent, upon the result of the working of the totalizator. In order to determine this they were at liberty to exercise their common-sense, and in so doing they have come to a not unreasonable conclusion. Greany himself was called, and refused to give evidence on the ground that he might criminate himself. That circumstance, certainly did not weaken the other evidence against defendant. I think, therefore, that there was sufficient evidence -to establish a. prima facie case against defendant, which he has left unanswered; that the rule for prohibition must be discharged with costs (six guineas)."