SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1791, 2 July 1913, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

THE CASSELLS LETTERS AGAIN. AND GAMING ACT. : HEARING BEFORE FULL BENCH. Convictions under the Gaming Act hav< frequently resulted in appeals to the Su preme Court, and yesterday one wa. heard before a Full Bench, comprisini Mr., Justice . Williams, Mr. Justice Den niston, and Mr. Justice' Sim. The casi was that of Ross v. .Casselis, in which thappellant asked the Court to reverse thdecision of Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M. I will bs remembered that in Septembe; last the magistrate convicted Boss of i breach of Section 30 of the Gaming Act in that he published to Detective-Sergean Uassella a notification as to betting 01 events to be run at the Canterbury Jocke; Club's Grand National meeting. Yester day Mr. M. Myers, with Mr. T. Neave appeared for the appellant (Ross), whili Mr. H. H. Ostler, of the Crown Lav Office,' appeared for the respondent, Ser geant-Deteetiye Casselis. Events Leading to the Appeal. . The prosecution was one of a seriei which came before the Lower Court ir August last. It appeared that on Jul] 12, Detective Casselis, using the assumet name of "J. Morris," wrote to Ross anc asked the latter to post, him a doublf card, on the Christchurch and W'ellingtoi race meetings. "J. Moms" also asked that the reply by post should be addressee to the Railway Hotel, Lower Hutt. In due course the detective went to this hotel, and was handed a letter, containing a betting card, with, the letters "Y.Z.'' in the corner.. Still under the same assumed name, the detective wrote again to Ross, asking ■ him to book a bet for which a postal liote for ss. was enclosed. In reply to. this, he received a letter'.returning his postal note, and stating that Ross had ceased doing business for .some considerable time.: An information, was then laid against Ross under Section 30 ;of the Gaming, Act,-and, in September, ho was convicted and fined. Notice of appeal was immediately given, but the hearing did not come on until yesterday.' . • Does One Letter Make an Offence? Mr. Myers, after an opening reference to the tacts, submitted that there was no evidence to connect Ross with "Y.Z." L ' Mr. Justice Denniston: Except that, in •the absenco of evidence, it may-be assumed that the first letter reached Ross, and that the card came from him; Counsel replied that, on the facts, there ivas no evidence to connect the card with Ross in such a way that it was a notification .by'him'within the meaning of the 'Act.' But, even if it could be held that this was a- notification by Ross (and to Casselis) as to: betting, then there would arise the .neat point of law. Is the issue of.one notification at the request,of one individual, and to that individual;, an offence?. He thought that this Was a point that had not yet been decided, and he directed his-argument mainly to that phase of the question; He pointed out that, if sucK a narrow, interpretation could be placed upon the section, it would be an oltenco for one friend to write to another friend .offering to make a bet. .Mr. Justice Williams remarked that he had ..just been calling the attention of the other members of the Bench to the fact that, if one person wrote to another saying: "Ko-niid-So will win the Christchurch Cup," that would be an offence within the mcHhing'of the Act. '■ Mr. Myers submitted that such would be the case if the Act were interpreted in the narrow sense. Counsel theii went on to refer to the mischief aimed at by the Act, and pointed out in; conclusion that the evidence in the case did not prove that "Y.Z." was Ross's recognised trademark. There was no evidence that Ross had published any cards. Bench Sure That Ross Sent Cards. Mr. Ostler, in addressing the Court, said that Mr. Myers had, made two points. The first was that there was no evidence to show that Ros3 had sent the cards to Detective-Sergeant Casselis, and the second was that .there was no evidence to show that Ross had published the cards. Mr. Justice Williams: You will not be troubled about the first point. We are satisfied that the documents came from 'defendant in response to - a'request from Casselis., ■ .. ■. . ;• ; . . > Mr. Ostler contended that the evidence showed:that Ross had'invited the person] to. whom the -betting- cards .were sent, "td bet with him, and this ..was contrary to the: Act. ' The'object of; the: section was to prevent bookmakers frjim bringing under the notice of the public the fact that they were ready to ; makc bets. - If the contention of Mr. Myers were correct, it would be possible for bookmakers to flood the country ,with betting cards. Decision was reserved.