THE PROHIBITION OF BETTING.
DECISION. R£)?EIRiVISD.
I v WELLESGTON, June 30. Iv the bookmaker's ease before the , • ) Full-Court, JTr Harper, for the appellaait contended that the regulations on the Cliristchurch courge wepe in- > valid because they did' not prohibit . betting generally, but only by a 'par- . ticnlar class. They were solely intended to protect the totalisator and not to maintain good' u order. He also agreed that the legislature novw oantemplaited a, ibreacihof regulations fthauld turn the offenders into a : criminal and expose him to imprison- , ment. ■. : f iWnr" Stringer fofi the other aide dooteiided that it was not necessary. i What was prohibited saould not necea j sarily be a nuisance but 'that if carried to a certain point it might 'become a ; Jmiiswnce. The appellant, by persist- . ence in disrogaa-ddng % \he warning ,had become a wilful treepasaer and 'as such was liable -under the Police . Offences Act to imprisonment., The Court reserved its decision.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/THS19040701.2.4.2
Bibliographic details
Thames Star, Volume XXXXI, Issue 10651, 1 July 1904, Page 1
Word Count
156THE PROHIBITION OF BETTING. Thames Star, Volume XXXXI, Issue 10651, 1 July 1904, Page 1
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Thames Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in