THE TOTALISATOR CASE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1543, 27 April 1887, Page 3

THE TOTALISATOR CASE.

Mr Oarew, m giving judgment m the totallsator oase yesterday said it was settled law that a person who deposits money with a stakeholder on a wagering oontraot can reoover it, whether the event comes off or not, provided notice is given to the stakeholder before he has pftid the stakes to the winner. The betting oat of whioh this caie arises is legal -m the sense that it is not prohibited by law, lut nevertheless It is a wagering oontraot, and by section thirty-three of the Gaming Aot it is not binding except aa a matter of conscience on either party. I oan see no distinction between legal and Illegal bets, beoause section thirty-three applies to all oontraots or agreements by way of gaming or wagering, The effect of ■eotlons eight, fotty-six, and forty seven is to legalise the übo of the totalisatar under oertain conditions, but these do not operate on section 32, to make wagers by means of the totalisator legal. The defendant contended that persons who worked the machines were turf agent), but bis Worship thought such a conclusion could only be arrived ot by distorting the faote. It Baemed to him olear, when • person at the pigeon hole of the totalizator named a horse, and gave money to the person m charge, and received the ticket, it was understood that he baoked the horse named, and that the money he deposited was his stakes, and the ticket he receives was a voucher that he did so make the bet himself. The runners of the totalisator register, bet, and hold the stake, and for this, and for the privilege of using their monopoly, they charged percentage from winners This being his view of the position of the parties, the cane of Reid v Anderson did not apply. Judgment for plaintiff for £23 and coots