APPEAL DISMISSED

Southland Times, Issue 20615, 13 October 1928, Page 8

APPEAL DISMISSED

TOTALISATOR CASE PAYMENT AT SEPARATE OFFICE NO CONNECTION WITH . MACHINE (Per United Press Association.) Wellington, October 12. In the Young v. Goggin appeal the Court’s judgment was: “The history of the use of the totalisator as given in the evidence in this case does not anywhere show the existence of a practice whereby a separate and distinct office not in any respect manually, mechanically or electrically connected with or operating simultaneously with the main totalisator has been treated as part of the totalisator, especially so is this case whereas here no attempt has been made to synchronize payments at the separate office with payments at the main totalizator. It may be that the distance from the main totalisator does not affect the test so long as there is sufficient connection between the separate pay-in office and the main totalisator to reasonably enable investments as approximately made in the separate office to be recorded on the main dial of the totalisator. This question does not arise here because the pay-in office appears to have no connection with the main totalisator. The question in each case must depend mainly on the facts. All we have to decide in the present case is whether the investment received in an entirely separate building with no connection and no attempt at synchronizing with the main totalisator is a payment made elsewhere than at the totalisator itself. The Magistrate on the facts found that such an investment was not made at a totalisator itself and we think he was right in so finding.” The Court affirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal with costs £2l and disbursements.