Untitled

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume III, Issue 105, 28 July 1892, Page 4

One of the principal objections to the totalisator tax which the Premier of the colonv —albeit it was introduced by his own Government—has is that certain Metropolitan clubshavechosen to tack the i£per cent, imposed by legislation on to those who invest in the totalisators run at their meetings. As the Premier pertinently pointed out in the course of the debate that occurred over Mr. W. C. Smith’s motion for the abolftion of the totalisator, it was never intended by those who framed the law that the clubs should make the public pay for their sport in this way. Mr. Fish, who represented the Dnnedin Jockey Club at the Wellington Conference, pointed out that his club had never erred in this direction, and though they have stood out against other Metropolitan Clubs in different ways, and we have not agreed with them therein, we must on the present occasion commend them for studying the interests of the public in the manner they have. As we pointed out last week there is a good deal of ununanimity on various subjects among the Metropolitan Racing Clubs of New Zeaiand, and this is one of such subjects. The Conference held in Wellington the other day could easily have deliberated over it and tried to adjust matters, but they preferred to attempt to deliberate on other less important branches of the sport Meanwhile the publie are left — pending further deliberation by Parliament —to wonder whether they are to be charged 1 1% per cent, or only io per cent, on their investments in the totalisator during the incoming racing season.

In another column we republish the most important portions of the debate which occurred in the House of Representatives over Mr. W. C. Smith’s motion for the abolition of the totalisator. Of course the gentlemen who denounced the machine came furnished with the usual stock of anecdotes, the usual unreliable figures, and the usual statements as to reckless gambling, &c., taken by them on hearsay, and which would not bear inspection with a view to verification. The best speech of the debate undoubtedly was that of Captain Russell, who brought to bear upon his subject an amount of practical knowledge which no other member of the House possesses. One or two other good speeches were, however, made on the same side, and it is rather curious to note the unanimity that existed among several of the members on one point, and that was that if we abolished the totalisator we should only have a worse form of betting in its stead. This is a very strong argument, and moreover a true one, and it carried a lot of weight with some members who do not believe in the State legalisation of the totalisator. There was another point several members agreed upon, and that was that if the State legalised the totalisator they should in all fairness legalise sweeps. From the tone taken by some of the speakers in reference to this branch of the subject, we feel satisfied that should the totalisator continue under the legislation of the State an enactment will speedily be placed on the Statute Book whereby sweeps —Calcutta sweeps, Derby sweeps, consultations, or whatever name they may be called by —will be legalised and run under State supervision and licensing. This is a step we have often advocated and will continue to advocate. But when once the State supervision is introduced it will require to be rigidly enforced. The parliamentary enactment must be strictly adhered to, and there must be no attempt at evasion, as unfortunately there has been only too often in connection with the totalisator.

It is rather peculiar that at the close of a racing season we should in some parts of this Colony be treated to more litigation and arguments on points of racing law—as distinct from ordinary law—than we can remember ever previously experiencing during the course of several years’ connection with the New Zealand turf world. Only in our issue of the 23rd ultimo had we to call attention to a case that came before Mr. Justice Conolly for argument, and in which the owner of the horse Bookas and the Gisborne Racing Club figured as the contending parties. On the top of this came two other cases, beside which all other arguments on rac-

ing law in New Zealand promise to fade into insignificance. One of these is sub judice, and therefore we must refrain from commenting on it at present, but the other we can deal with after the decision of Mr. Justice Williams. His Honor, of whose capability to expound the law there has never been the shadow of a doubt, had before him the other day in Dunedin a case on appeal from the decision of the R.M., in which one T. Barnett, a wellknown Dunedin bookmaker, was charged with laying what are popularly designated as totalisator odds. He was convicted and fined, and he now appealed against the decision. The gist of his counsel’s argument seems to us to have been that as the rate of odds were not fixed at the time the bet was made, the number of persons investing with the bookmaker on the horse on which the investments were made did not alter the price paid by the bookmaker, who depended entirely upon the totalisator, and the bookmaker had no control over that. It could therefore, counsel contended, in no sense be said that the bookmaker “conducted a scheme by which prizes of money were competed for ” — which offence the information against Barnett alleged. His Honor, having intimated that he was inclined to hold this opinion, the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. Haggitt, who appeared on behalf of the Crown, practically expressed his in ability to argue to the contrary, and His Honor Mr. Justice Williams then delivered judgment, of which the full text is published in another column, and which it seems to us practically allows the “ walking totalisators” to go as they please from this date forward. This is undoubtedly an unsatisfactory position, looking at it from the point of view of several racing clubs, and there can be no doubt that the law in this respect is in a somewhat anomalous condition. However, Mr. Justice Williams had only to interpret it as he found it, and it is good odds that his decision would have been upheld had it been taken to the Court of Appeal. Meanwhile the peripatetic gentlemen who lay totalisator odds and do a good business thereat may rest easy, free from all police interference.

The other case to which we alluded above and which is sub judice, has also a bookmaker concerned in it, but, in addition, it opens out a wide field of argument as to the duties and powers of stewards of racing clubs, which so far as we can remember have never been quite clearly defined in this country, albeit the law in England has been strictly laid down for many years past. Therefore Mr. Justice Conolly will on the 23rd prox. have a particularly hard knot to unravel. The case referred to came be'bre His Honor in its initial stage on Tuesday, when an application was made by Mr. Theo. Cooper, on summons, to have argument on points of law argued in the case of Blaikie v. Lawry and Others before trial Mr. A. E. Whitaker appeared for the defendants. Mr. Cooper said the summons was by consent, and they had drawn up the questions of law to be argued. By consent the hearing of argument was fixed for Wednesday, the 3rd August, in Banco. The case involves the right of a racing committee to exclude from a racecourse a person who has purchased an admission ticket issued by the club. The plaintiff is Robert Blaikie, a bookmaker, and the defendants the Auckland Pony and Trotting Club. The plaintiff’s pleadings set out that he is a commission agent, and the defendants are the committee of the Auckland Trotting Club, having the management of the affairs and general business of the club. On Saturday, the 26th September, 1891, the committee arranged and held a meeting for horse racing and trotting matches at Potter’s Paddock, Epsom, under the title of the Auckland Trotting Club Spring Meeting, and issued tickets for the said meeting, one of which was sold to plaintiff, thereby contracting with and representing to the plaintiff that he was entitled to admission to the course, and to remain thereon without interference during the said meeting to its conclusion. The plaintiff, relying on this contract, presented his ticket, and was admitted to the course, but shortly after his admission, and while the said meeting was in progress, an officer of the committee, acting under their instructions, wrongfully, and in breach of the contract and representation, and in the presence of a large number of persons, expelled the plaintiff from the course, and refused to allow him to remain thereon or to witness the said meeting. The plaintiff did not, while on the course, bet by laying odds, nor attempt to do so, nor was he a defaulter. He claimed judgment for

damages. The defendants in their pleadings deny that they were all members of the Trotting Club, although some of them were. They allege that under the rules and regulations of the club they had not altogether the management of its affairs and business, and they quote the rule fixing the duties of the committee in respect to the general management. They allege that neither the stewards nor the committee of the club issued tickets for the meeting mentioned in the statement of claim, nor did they sell, or cause to be sold, to the plaintiff a ticket for the said meeting, and they deny that the plaintiff presented the ticket at the course, or that any officer of the committee, acting under the defendant’s instructions, expelled the plaintiff from the course, or refused to allow him to remain thereon. They further allege that the plaintiff, while upon the course on Dec. 27th, 1890, and on the 3 r( J January, 1891, and also on the 26th September, 1891, bet by laying odds, and attempted to do so, and that plaintiff was on the 26th September, > 89 1, a defaulter. The defendants also say that prior to the 27th December, 1890, the committee of the club duly made a regulation that any person cash betting or laying the odds or betting about any of the horses engaged at any of the races of the club, should take out a license from the club to enable him to bet on the course, and an advertisement to that effect was published in the daily papers, the fee to be guineas. That on the 27th December,' 1890, and 3rd of January, 1891, the plaintiff, not having taken out a license, and notwithstanding the regulation, and in breach thereof, laid the odds and cash betted, and betted on the course of the said club. The stewards of the club held a meeting, and fined the plaintiff in the sum of £5 for a breach of the regulation. That on or about the 17th of January, 1891, the plaintiff was notified by the secretary, by letter, of the fine, and he had not since paid to the club the sum of or any portion thereof, and by such non-pay-ment he became a defaulter to the club. And fora further defence, the defendants allege that Section 4 of the Statute of Frauds has not been complied with, as the ticket alleged in the statement of claim is not signed by the defendants, or any one of them, or any person legally authorised by them, and if the committee caused to be sold to plaintiff the ticket, bv reason of which the plaintiff entered upon the racecourse, the committee or stewards, immediately .prior to the plaintiff leaving, or being expelled from the course, revoked, cancelled, and put an end to any license, right, or authority conferred by it. It was stated by counsel that for the purposes of argument all the facts would be admitted. The Auckland Supreme Court next Wednesday promises to have focussed upon it the attention of a good many racing men throughout the Colony