THE CANTERBURY BOOKMAKERS’ CASE.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume VIII, Issue 407, 12 May 1898, Page 12

THE CANTERBURY BOOKMAKERS’ CASE.

Our Christchurch correspondent, under date of. Tuesday, May 8, writes The sentences passed on three well-known bookmakers by the Stipendiary Magistrate this morning has been the chief topic in sporting circles. The following is a copy of the judgment given this morning in reference to the charges against Martin Taylor, John Higgins, and James Randall, for keeping shops for the purpose of betting “ These are prosecutions under the 11th section of “The Gaming and -Lotteries Act, 1891.” Taylor and Randall plead guilty ; Higgins pleads not guilty. I entertain no doubt whatever that Higgins is occupier, with Randall, of a common gaming house, and is a partner with him in these gambling transactions. He is, therefore, convicted. It is not my purpose to -enter into any lengthy dissertation upon the evils of gambling, except to say that it is an evil which is assuming in this community gigantic proportions and is rapidly demoralising the youth of this colony. That the Legislature regards gambling in this light is evident from the drastic provisions in various Acts passed from time to time in view of its suppression. Dealing recently with offences of this description, I found it necessary to inflict severe punishment, as experience showed me that fines were useless, but that when J used the powers of imprisonment given by Acts the evil was at once checked The nefarious and surreptitious practices carried on by defendants in the cases now before me are of a much more serious nature than those I recently dealt with. These ‘ tote shops” (so called) are simply nets spread in defiance of law to ensnare the youths of the colony in. vicious practices of gambling to gain profit by. those engaged in the traffic. In one of the books seized I find bets registered to the number of 1400, extending over the whole colony, of amounts varying from 40s to 2s 6d. Defendants have pursued their illegal calling with a full

knowledge of the risks they ran in so doing, with the fates of recent convictions before them, and they must take the consequences of their actions. Penalties under 11th section of the Act are alternative fines of £lOO or six months imprisonment, with hard labor, at the option of the magistrate. They are each sentenced to two months imprisonment, with hard labor, and ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution.

The Supreme 'Court in Sydney last week upheld —on appeal —the convictions against certain bookmakers for keeping gaming shops, but there the punishment was fine, not imprisonment. The Evening News, of May 5, reports : —The verdict given yesterday in the case of Potter v. Thomas, which was in favor of the former, means the closing of the whole of the betting shops in the City of Sydney. Whether the verdict will be respected by the people doing business in the shops remains to be seen, but it is generally expected that the police will see to this. Many think that the battle in the betting world is not yet over, and that we may yet see a trial in which the question as to a racecourse being a place will be tested. The decision occasioned some consternation amongst the betting men in the city. Its immediate effect was the closing of nearly all the shops in Pitt Street and other localities where the practice is carried on to any extent. During the afternoon argumentative groups of racing men gathered at various points and reviewed the state of affairs, the concensus of opinion being to the effect that “ the game was done.” The question of prosecuting a further appeal was considered, but received very little fayor. The pre sent attitude of the leading shops is that of strict compliance with the law. As soon as the decision was made known the usual notice-boards displaying the “odds” were withdrawn, the doors were closed, and cards bearing the intimation that “No betting was carried on in these premises” met the eye of the passer-by. Mr Rose, when seen with reference to'Mr Humphrey Oxenham’s business, said that the verdict had been given, and they must abide by it. He for one did not intend to prosecute any appeal. The shops which had hitherto, conducted a “ cash” business had done so conscientiously, believing that the decisions were bad in law, and that the Full Court would. allow the appeals. “ The decision now given,” said he, “ has settled a vexed question of forty years’ standing. It practically says that anywhere may be a place within the meaning of the Act, provided it is used in a manner prohibited by the Act, that is, if cash or value consideration be taken, and if the taker has some exclusive right to the place as against the world. It is also made apparent that owners or occupiers of shops, offices, racecourses, etc., cannot absolve themselves from their liability.” Mr Oxenham’s premises were closed immediately the decision was given, “ and the employes given a holiday,” said Mr Rose, with grim humor. Following the lead, most of the other establishments closed also. Wood’s, Dalveen’s, and many others wore a Sunday appearance. Mr M. J. Moloney said that he had practically ceased to take cash bets many months ago, so that the decision did not affect him in the least. In common with Messrs Oxenham, Wood,

and others, Mr Moloney is a member of Tattersail’s, and can confine himself to the legitimate business. Some smaller establishments are keeping open until they have “ had time to consider the situation.” One or two of them are awaiting instructions from proprietors who are away.