BOOKMAKERS’ ADVERTISEMENTS

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVII, Issue 965, 3 September 1908, Page 9

BOOKMAKERS’ ADVERTISEMENTS

ALLEGED BREACH OF THE GAMING ACT. Arthur Cleave, proprietor of “ The Sporting and Dramatic Review,” was charged before Mr. R. W. Dyer, S.M., in the Police Court last Friday with committing a breach of the Gaming and Lotteries Act by inserting in his journal “an advertisement or notification whereby it was made to appear that a certain person was willing to give information or advice as to the probable result of any horse race, either in or out of New Zealand, or to make any bet or wager on the result of any such horse race.” Mr. Selwyn Mays appeared for the prosecution, while Mr. Clayton defended. Mr. Mays explained that the information was laid under section 31, subsection 2, of the Gaming and Lotteries Act of 1907.. The advertisement referred to ran as follows: — “ Arthur Law —turf accountant —Wellington. All correspondence attended to promptly. No. reply, no business; unless by special arrangement.” Mr. Mays proceeded to call evidence regarding the meaning of the advertisement, when Mr. Clayton objected that such evidence would be irrelevant. “ We are simply concerned with the advertisement,” said Mr. Clayton . The man referred to in .the adverment: was, explained Mr. Mays, a wellknown Wellington bookmaker. Mr. Clayton admitted- that that was so. • Mr. Dyer-said he supposed that Mr. Clayton intended him to look upon the matter as if Mr. Cleave had merely received the advertisement, read it, and inserted it, while the prosecution, on the other hand, contended that by reading it Mr. Cleave should have known that it was illegal to publish it. After reading over the advertisement, Mr. Dyer said that it appeared t o him that ‘ turf accountant ” was a swell ” name for a bookmaker. ‘ Of course,” said his Worship, “it must have some meaning. A man would not pay for its insertion for fun. The sporting public would put a certain translation on it.” Mr. Dyer then said he would like 1 to bear evidence, and Mr. Mays called Sergeant Eales, who stated that he • had known the bookmaker referred to for lhe past, eighteen years. Wit- ‘ ness's translation of the advertisement was as follows:—“ Turf accoun-

tant” (a bookmaker who made bets on horse races); “ All correspondence promptly attended to ” (the bets were immediately registered by him); “No reply, no business; unless by special arrangements ” (if one did not give a reply before the start of a race, unless otherwise agreed upon, there was no bet on). Mr. Clayton: Supposing that a man who knew nothing about racing were to read that advertisement, would he gather from it what you have told us, ” Witness: A man with ordinary intelligence would gather so. Would you really say that advisedly?—A man must have experience to understand betting. Detective. Cox gave similar evidence. Mr. Clayton said that he did not propose to call evidence, but contended that no breach had been committed, as the advertisement was not a “ straight-out ” one. It did not intimate that this man was prepared to bet on such and such a race, as the advertisements did before the passing of the Act. The section was then -read out by Mr. Mays, and Mr. Dyer remarked: The question is—ls that advertisement.a., notification? ’’ ; Mr. Clayton laid giteat stress on the words “ whereby it is made to appear.” He pointed out that the advertisement had been running for years, and produced a recent issue of an English journal of the same nature as “ The Sporting and Dramatic Review,” which not only contained a full page advertisement from a bookmaker, intimating his willingness to do business on certain and any races, but also included a four-column “ write up,” pictures being given of the advertiser’s offices. Mr. Clayton further mentioned that it was 13 years since any exception had been taken to any of Mr. Cleave’s advertisements, and that he had always endeavoured to conform with the law. Mr. Mays: I believe that this is the first case of its Zealand. In delivering his decision, Mr. Dyer stated that to any man or woman who frequented race meetings Sergeant Eales’ interpretation of the advertisement was a correct one. The point had been raised by Mr. Clayton that the advertisement must state in straight-out terms that the man was prepared to bet on a horse race. In answer to the question, “ Does the advertisement make it appear to the ordinary reader that the advertiser is willing to bet on a horse race?” he (Mr. Dyer) thought that it did. He considered the advertisement to be a notification to the effect that the advertiser was willing to make a bet on any horse race. To him the questionable part was contained in the words, “ All , correspondence attended to promptly. No reply, no business.” A conviction must be entered, but as it was the first case of' its kind in the Dominion, he would not xfiflict a heavy penalty, and would be pleased to offer Mr. Cleave every facility to take the case to a higher Court. ‘lf I am wrong, ’ said Mr. Dyer, “ the higher Court will put me right. I shall only inflict a nominal penalty.” His Worship thereupon imposed a fine of £l, and £5 19s. costs . Fifteen other identical informations against the defendant were withdrawn by Mr. Mays.