A SPORTING PAPER IN TROUBLE.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume I, Issue 13, 25 October 1890, Page 1

A SPORTING PAPER IN TROUBLE.

Heavy Damages against the Proprietors of the N.Z. Referee. Our Christchurch correspondent writes:— Not only in sporting circles, but among all sections of the community here, the judgment given against Messrs. Selig and Bird, the proprietors of the Referee, has been the theme of animated comment. Let me briefly recapitulate the facts of the case. On the Bth inst. Phineas Selig and Arthur Edward Bird, trading as Selig and Bird, were charged at the R.M. Court, that they did, on the 29th August, unlawfully keep an office at Cathedral Square as a common gaming house, for the purpose of receiving money for gambling purposes, and contrary to the Gaming and Lotteries’ Act, 1881. The information

was sworn to by a member of the police force, who—on the day mentioned in the warrant, and in answer to an advertisement in the Referee which stated that money would be received for investment on the totalisator at any country meeting—tendered Mr. Bird some money, telling him to put the same on Victor, who. was running in one of the steeplechases at North Canterbury. Amass of evidence was taken, but defendants did not deny the material allegations in the information. They admitted receiving money at different times for investment on the machine for clients. The police swore that the machine was watched at Amberley, and that Bird, although present at the races, did not invest any money on the totalisator. Of course Bird may have instructed an agent to put the money on for him, but if so there was no evidence brought forward on the point. The magistrate reserved his decision, which was delivered on Thursday. It speaks for itself, and I owe no apology for giving it in full His Worship said—The defendants are charged with keeping an office as a common gaming house. The facts show unmistakeably that they have been keeping or running a totalisator on their own account. They received from the informant in terms of an advertisement appearing in the New Zealand Referee, a newspaper owned by the defendants, and in that advertisement it is noticeable that they do not state the investments received will be paid in by them to the totalisator. Had they done so the money obtained by them in pursuance of the advertisement would have been obtained under false pretences. It is proved that on the day of the race the defendants did not invest any money in the totalisator. This is sworn to by Detective Neill, and neither of the defendants are brought to contradict that statement. .If the horse named by the investor—who deposits Zi with them—wins, then they pay him the totalisator dividend, less io per cent, which they charge for their trouble, and io per cent, which is the totalisator charge, but which the totalisator has not received. If the horse named by the investor does not win, or does not start, then the defendants, to use a sporting phrase, ‘ collar the money, and, instead of the £l going to swell the winnings of the fortunate investors on the authorised totalisator, it. goes into the pockets of the defendants. This, in my opimon, is not only keeping a common gaming-house, but it is roguery and swindling of the worst possible description. First, if the horse wins they swindle the investor out of IO per cent., which they never paid to the totalisator. Second, if it does not win, or does not start, they swindle the winners on the authorised totalisator out of a share of every Z"l which they fail to pay in. Third, they swindle the totalisator machine owners out of their profits ; and, for anything I know, they may swindle the fockey Club out of the commission which may be charged the totalisator. The profits of this kind of thing are great; so must the responsibility be. The defendants are fined £SO costs on rst i n f° rrnat j on > to be levied by distress; in default of distress three month’s imprisonment. They may think themselves lucky that I did not send them to gaol as common swindlers for three months. The defendants are not to be dealt with as ordinary defaulters. They own a newspaper, and they have used the publicity and power of the Press to aid them in their swindling transactions. If the verdict was “ rough,” the remarks in delivering the judgment are much more severe. Notice of appeal was given and Mr. Justice Denniston granted an application to stay proceedings. Comments may be reserved till next week.