Untitled

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1765, 13 February 1888, Page 2

In view of a previous decision by Judge Richmond m a precisely ciniilar case there wbb never any queß ion as to what the decision of the Wellington Resi dent Magistrate's Court must be m the resent case of Nathan v. Stewards of the Island Bay Racing Club. It is beyond all doubt the law that persons lunning totalisators and- receiving moneys depointed as backing the chances of particular horses are simply Stb.B of the stakes m so many sT»gf?B atyd ,&r° bound to refund the stakes to the depository whenever tho ibi-ter choose to demand it . Parliament bas lejralißcd tbo ose • f tho totalisntor but it bas not enacted that money dopointed therein is to abide the issue of the event upon which it is staked and therefore h is open to «he losers m every case to deraa: d their money back If tbis were always done then of coarse there w.ould bo no winners, as tboso who bad backed the right liorse would only bo able to get back their original Btakes for there would be no pool of losers' money to divide. Jt appears too that the money staked can be demanded back m fall, hcuce the totalisator can deduct no percentage and would become an utterly OBelcß affair, as after the race it would be a case of "As you wero " with all parties. Of course this will put a stop to the use of the totilisator altogether unless a similar code of honor £s established m referenoo to totalisator stakes, as obtains m regard to ordinary " wagers" m. which t^ repudiation or non-payment of a fairly ma4a j^et ia regarded as " welching" and visited with oetracism from lji« turf and the ring. Tfaifl should certainly bo the case, for whatever opipiop may be held aa to the expediency of legal^ihg tlje uso of the totalisator, there can Le n.o fciyo ppjln/ons ebout the conduct of those who like the pit -n tiff m the case ou^tr notice admitted m the witnegßrbpx that had £h« horse he had backed won he would | hive claimed bio dividend, and jet . dem«nded bi^ n^opfy back when be bad I

lost — the money which had m fact been won from him by others who had shared his rise and were fairly entitled to their winnings. — But though no do bt some such code of honor will generally obtain, there are bo many « ases of dispute and dissatisfaction m connection with racing that it will probably be by no means an infrequent thing for losers to demand the return of their money, and as this will mean a considerable risk, either the totalisations per- cent ago will have to be largely incr ased, or its use must bo discontinued, unless some way can be found of protecting those who run the machine. This, however, we think, might very probably be effected by having a notice displayed on the front of the totalisator m large printed characters setting forth that money is only received on deposit, subject to the condition that the total bo deposited on any one event shall be divided among the backers of the winner less the per centage of the machine, and that no stakes shall be refunded to any other depositors, and by setting torth the like conditions clearly on all tickets issued. Possibly one of our sporting contemporaries (the " Referee for instance) will be good enough to look up that point, and inform backers of horse* as to whether the plan we have suggested will effectually meet the case. If it will not, then either the whole thing must ba made a matter of honor like an ordinary bet, or Parliament must be asked to amend the Gaming and Lotteries Act, or failing both these thinga the totalisator mast be given up altogether. Many people will be of opinion that the third alternative is the best of all.