“SOCIAL EVIL.”
Extent of Pool-betting at Home. JUVENILE GAMBLERS. Described in the British House of Commons yesterday as a “ glaring social evil,” pool-betting was the subject of a proposed amendment to the Betting and Lotteries Bill. It was contended that all football associations were opposed to the system since it led to gambling by boys and girls, and further that it was now creeping into cricket. The amendment to include pool-betting in the Bill was defeated without a division. This system of pool-betting is general in England and Scotland. All the leading firms of bookmakers, or “ investment agents ” as they call themselves, run a pool on Saturdays. The price of entry varies according to the district in which the pool is being run. It may be Id, 3d or 6d. Forms are published in the newspapers on the Thursday evening giving the leading games to be played on Saturday afternoon. The investor is required to place as many winners as possible. If there are twelve matches, the entry nearest to the correct results for the 'twelve games is declared the winner. There are also second and third prizes. It often happens when there is a surprise win that only one correct solution is received; then the dividend is consequently large. • Lure of Cheapness. Realising the popularity of this form of gambling the football writers sum up the prospects in the various matches and attempt to give a forecast of the results. But it is the cheapness of entry that attracts the public, particularly 'in the poorer districts. Where there is a little more money, it is usually found that the gambler prefers to have Is on a horse with the bookmaker. Should a double come up, then a bet of Is may show a large profit. For some years there has been agitation for the suppression of the pool system, but opinion in the House of Commons has always been divided on the subject. In New Zealand betting regulations are notoriously strict. If one is on the racecourse then it is permitted to subscribe to the Government totalisator. bht sweepstakes and bookmakers are outside the law. Nevertheless art unions are legal and well patronised. But participation in Tattersall’s sweepstake is prohibited. Lottery Law in New Zealand. In the North Island yesterday, a man was fined £1 and 10s costs for a breach of the Gaming Act. He had missed some letters, and when he complained he admitted that they had contained Tattersall’s tickets. It was submitted by the detective-sergeant that it was not necessary to possess a ticket to be guilty under the section which provided penalties for participation in prohibited lotteries. This morning a reporter questioned a leading Christchurch lawyer on the position with regard to the winners in this sweepstake. It was stated that the police have no power to touch the fund. It is formed outside New Zealand and there is no evidence that the moneys is coming into this country. He added that participators have no power of suing for their winnings. It is a matter of honour.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TS19341107.2.139
Bibliographic details
Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20455, 7 November 1934, Page 10
Word Count
512“SOCIAL EVIL.” Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20455, 7 November 1934, Page 10
Using This Item
Star Media Company Ltd is the copyright owner for the Star (Christchurch). You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Star Media. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.