MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1435, 18 December 1886, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTON—FRIDAY. (Before Mr H. C. S. Baadeley, R.M., and Mr D, Thomas, J.F.) ALLSQHD BBBAOH OF OAMINO AND LOTiKBU.S ACT.

!he following evidence wu tiken •tier we wont to p.-esa vo-ter'a/ ; S rgeant Feltoa continued : 'Die way a swindle can be worked is this: There were a certain number of horses in a tain race. In a scheme similar to the defendant’s there would be various investors on the different horses ; on some perhaps only once. Une man retained possession of the book and watched the race. His confederate was at •he winning post, for it was distinctly specified that the money »as paid out on the first horse past the post As soon as it was known which horse won, the man who bad charge of the book put down more numbers against the winning horse, and of course reduced the dividend Therefore practically there was no check oa the m n.—Fran.is Gass said he had bought a tictcet from the defendants. In teply to witness one of the defendants said that ho would if he won receive the same dividend as the totalisator paid.—By Mr Stringer: By this witness understood he would get a divi dend in proportion He did not expect to receive as much for bis 2s 61 as the totahsator paid for a pound —The evidence of another witness was taken, concluding the case for the police.—Mr Stringer said there *as no dispute as to the facts. The total of the money invested in any race was di ided by the number of inves ora, and the dividend paid in accordance. He was sorry the Magis trate had decided to take evidence, as c how a awiud.e might bs wo feed according to the defendant's scheme. There was nothing whatever to show that the defendants had n t ao ed fairly and straightforwardly throughout. Witn reference to the merits of the case, it contd not be contended that the scheme was a game or lottery within the meaning of Act (Ounse 19 facing explanatory of Oiause 18, under wbi-h =he charge was laid), the result not being determined r-y a mode of chance —The Magistrate said that horseracing had been decided to be a game of chance. —Mr Stringer admitted that faorseracing bad been decided to be a game of chance, when combined with tbs totalisator, bat that could not possibly affect Oianse 18 of the Act. Mr stringer wont on to adduce authorities to snow chat the defendants had not carried on a lottery or game of chance within the meaning of the Act. The scheme was simply a eweepstske of a nature legalised by Clause 7ot the Amending Act. The tickets were 2s fid each, and the amount oi money subscribed by backers had not exceeded £5. He submitted that the case must be dismissed.—The Bench retired to consider the points raised.— The Beach s do* t i»t they were quite -atisfied that the esse did nut c >me wi bin o!au»e 7 of the Amndiug Act, and that it esme within the scope of clauses 18 and 19 of the original emt. Unfortunately, however, for the prosecution, the defendants bad been bonded a little too soon, and t ie case was one which would in Scotland be designated as “ not proven.” The Bench w<ue clearly of opinion that the defendants were carrying on a kind of illegsl totaiisat r. The Bench also expressed their entire concurrence with the decisions given by Mr Beethsm, K.M , and which bad been mentioned daring the coarse of the case The charge was du missed