SCIENTIFIC WAGERING

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 20108, 29 March 1928, Page 7

SCIENTIFIC WAGERING

AN “INFALLIBLE” METHOD INVENTOR OF SUPER3ETTING SYSTEM FINED I Per PreSt Aot ocUstlon. J AUCKLAND, March 28. “Many years ago it was founi'l necessary to protect credulous people from tipsters and sharpers and tnis case differs from others of the same class only in that the fee is about tea times mure than the usual tipster asks,” said Mr F. K. Hunt, 8.M., in the Police Court in imposing a fine ot£2s upon Edwin Willersou Warren, charged with sending a circular to G. A. Haines, with intent to induce him to apply for advice for the purpose or wagering on horse races. In a written judgment the Magistrate said the circular bore the itle of “The New Zealand Reinvestment Company, for the Elimination Method of Scientific Totalisator Speculation.” The method was described as the production of a master mind and was characterised as “the greatest racing discovery of all time.” The average of success was stated to be “more stable than the law of averages.” It was stated that backers who had used the system had received 40 per cent on investments, while one investor with £3O capital, betting in amounts of £lO at all meetings over a cerain period, would have shown a profit of £2200, or a return of 730 per cent, on the original outlay. The price of the “method” was £lO 10s.

Counsel had laid stress on the point that the accusal! did not advise illegal betting with bookmakers, but only investments on the totalisator. It was, however, wrong to send a circular offering to give advice on a horse race, whether the bet was to be made with a bookmaker or ou the machine. “I am mentioning this point because it is clear the purchaser of the information could not be prose t at all race meetings set out in the postscript to the circular, for certainly two or throe would be hold on the same day,” the Magistrate added. “Ho would therefore have to use a bookmaker or have an agent in the town to put his money on the machine. Both of those methods arc illegal. “It is surprising to note that this man should not operate his own scheme and turn £3O into £2200, as his first circular says. Evidently it is easier to got £lO 10s from 2000 simple people.”

A fine of £25, with £3 13s costs, was imposed. Securitv for appeal was fixed at £lO 10s. ’