LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1545, 14 September 1912, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. WAS THERE PUBLICATION?. THAT DOUBLE CHART. , SCOTT-MARTINDALE APPEAL. ' What constitutes publication under Section 30 of the Gaming Act?- This was the main point atjssuc in the Supremo Court yesterday afternoon when Scott and Martindale appealed to.the Chief.Justice (Sir Robert Stout) to reverse tho decision of Mr. W. G. Biddell. S.M., who last month convicted them sfA publishing to Detec-tive-Sergenn,t Cassells a double chart relating to betting ; on horse races. Thn information in tho lower Court alleged that William. Scott and Heilry Martindale', members of the firm of Scott: and Martindale, bookmakers, of Wellington, published a certain document (double chart) which contained a notification as to betting on horse races (Wellington Steeplechase and Winter Hurdles) to be run at Trentham on July 17- last. Both defendants pleaded not guilty, but after hearing the evidence, the magistrate on August 13 convicted them and imposed a fine of .£3 and costs. - It was held by the magistrate to be admitted or proved that the defendants were bookmakers residing in Wellington. On July 12, Detectivo Cassells, under the assumed name of J. Jforris, wrote to the defendants, askine them to post to him at the Railway Hotel, Lower Hutt. a double card on the Christchurch and Wellington race meeting. On July 13, the defendants posted fo "J. Morris, Esq., Railway Hotel, Lower Hutt," an envelope containing a double chart, on the Wellington Steeplechase and Winter Hurdle.? and marked A.B.C. On July 16, this envelope was handed to Detective Cassells by the wife of the proprietor, of the hotel. Subsequently, on July 29. Detective Cassells wrote to the firm as follows.:— A.B.C—Got double card all right. Thanks for same. Book me 150 £o \ treble. Cantain Jinele, My Lawyer, and The G.N. Steeples, Win- , ter Cup, and G.X. Hurdles. P.N. for ss. enclosed and acknowledge receipt before Wednesday- next, and oblige, J. MORRIS, Railway Hotel? , Lower Hutt. On July 31. Detective Cassells went to the Railway Hotel, Lower Hutt, and received a letter addressed to "J. Morris." This was in the following terms:— Dear sir,—We cannot' understand ' your communication, and it is evidently intended for someone else. Enclosed please find ss. for postal note sent to us.—Yours truly, SCOTT AND MARTINDALE. Defendants had a client at Lower Hutt, named J. Morris, but they had never seen him, and had had no transactions with him for a considerable time. There was somb evidence of a "J. Morris" having resided at Lower Hutt five years ago, but no evidence that he had resided there as recently as July, 3012. Defendants gave the proprietor of the Railway Hotel no authority to hand to Detective Cassells any letters they wrote to "J. Morris." It was admitted thnt the proprietor of the hotel knew the identity of Detective Cassells. :

it was on this evidence that the Magistrate determined that the defendants had been guilty of publishing the notification relating to betting. From his decision the defendants now appealed, on the ground that. it. was erroneous in point of law. ~ ' ■ Sir John Findlay, with him Mr. R.-M. ■Watson, appeared for tho appellants (Scott and Martindale), while Mr. H. H. Ostler, of the Crown Law Office, appeared for the respondent (Detective Cassells). At. the commencement of Sir .John Findlay's argument, his Honour said it appeared that "publication" was the only question before the Court. Sir John Findlay admitted that that was so. ..

The argument mainly wait on the lines of that put forward in the Lower Court. His Honour reserved decision.