THE TOTALISATOR.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2239, 2 May 1881, Page 2

THE TOTALISATOR.

This morning, at tho Besident Magistrate's Court, before Mr Whitefoord, 8.M., and Messrs Oilivier, lnmu.ii, Xiee, and Parker, J.P.'s, the adjourned case against George Hobbs and William Goodwin was beard. They were charged with gambling on the ' racecourse by means of a machine known as I the "Totalis-itor." Tho information bad J been kid by Alfred Drake, a well-known I bookmaker, and the action was sought to be brought within the meaning of tho Vagrant Act, 1566, coclion 4, which lays down that ! any one playing at any game of chai.cj for I money in any open or public place shall be lii.blo to imprisonment, with hard labor, for a i period not exceeding twelve months. Mr S( ringer appeared for the proeeoution ; Mr Joynt for defendants. Ootstsble Gorzran deposed that he saw an instrument called the totaliiator or Pari Mutuel set up on the Obristchurch race-course on April 18th last. Heard it belonged to Hobbs and Goodwin, but did not see them usine the instrument. Knew nothing of its working. Sigioiaund Franck stated that he was the inventor of the totaliiator. He was on the race-course on the 18th, saw one instrument there; defendants were working it. It was not a totalisator. They made up a sweepstake. They had a marking-board, on which they

marked the torses in the raio, and the number of investors at £1 per "hare until the starting o£ a race. When the horses in any race started, the marking apparatus was looked up, and on the face of the machine appeared the total of the investments and the names of the horses on which the money had boon laid, with the amount put on each. There was no betting; 'if anyone wanted to do that they had to go to the bookmakers. The oporation witness had been describing was a pool—a simple sweopstake. After a race had been won the wholo amount placed to the sweep was divided among those who had placed their money on tho winning horse, less ten por cent., which went to tho proprietor of the maohine. Witness had patented a totalisator in New Zealand, about which there, were numerous actions pending. That was a registering machine pure and simple, and the one now in question resembled it. E. Davio, a licensed survoyor, deposed to being at tho races on the 18th of last month, whero he mw a totalisator at work. The Christohurch race-course is on Resorve No.

' 9 - . , G. Stead depoaed to being one of the trustees of tho raoo-ccurse reserve, and saw a totalisator at work on the race-course on

April 18».b. Cross- examined—ls a member of tho Canterbury Jookey Club. Tho Ohristohuroh racecourse is fenced, and the public aro admitted to raoea held on it on payment of foe. Knew Messrs Snider and Drake, bookmakers. Bookmakers eeomed to think the ueo of tho totalisator detrimental to their business. The right to charge a foe for admission to the racecourse is derived from the Christchuroh Baas- course Reserve Act, 1878. This was tho case for tho prosecution. Mr Joynt submitted that tho oase for the prosecution had not been made out. The Raoeoourso had been shown to be an enclosure, not an " opon place." Mr Stringer quoted authorities, to show that, by recent decisions, totaliiators and Paris Mutuels were, in Victoria, ruled to be gambling machines. He argued that the provisions of the Act, vesting the racecourse -in trustees, did not make it anything else but an open and public place, as understood in the Vagrant Act, notwithstanding that an admission fee was ohargod. It was essentially a .public place ; it was dodioated to the publio. The trustees wero really appointed to pro--serve the rights of tho publio to it, and to snake it an open public place. He quoted a case reported in 7, C.B. rep., New Series, p. 164, Sewell v Taylor, to show that a fenced enclosure, when used for publio amusement, became an open or publio place. In another case it had been laid down by two eminent justices that a railway carriage in motion in which gambling might be carried on, would be an open or public place within the meaning of the Vagrant Aot. Mr Joynt contended that his friend had failed first in proving that the maohine was a gambling machine, or that defendants had usod it for gambling purposes. The principals in this prosecution bad been very tenderly dealt wi:li. They hud been carefully kept out of tho witness • box, and tho -only evidence offered was that of Mr Franck, who said ho saw a maohine at work resembling an invention of his own, which latter was •imply a registering machine. Mr Joynt went on to st&to at longth the rules which obtained as to the interpretations of the wording of Acts, and argued that the words "opon or public place" must bo taken to refer only to roads or thoroughfares or to some place to which tho publio have unlimited access. The word " place" had been given a very wide application. A bookmaker who occupied at races an unroofed box or pew, and another who was simply mounted on a three legged stool, wero held to have been in places usod for betting purposes, but not " public places." In reference to tho rail way earriago oaso, there could be no doubt that a railway when used for travelling on was a publio highway. But unlets it could be shown that the publio have absolutely tho same right of user over tho racecourse as they have over any highway, then that ground could not bo an " open or public placo " within the meaning of the Vagrancy Aot, and tho prosecution must fail. It was obviouu from the Christchuroh Racecourse Reserve Act [quoted] that the publio had no such unlimited uccess to the racecourse. In point of fact, the publio had no right to go on to it otjany time, unless by the permission of tho trustees ; they could not go or come, or romain in ana upon that reserve except at the unlimited pleasure of the trustees. Mr Joynt wound up by asking tho Bonoh first to decide whether the machine belonging to Messrs Hobbs and Goodwin hod been shown by the ovidenco to have been worked at all or worked for gambling purposes, and secondly, if they thought it had been so used, whother the racecourse was an "opon or publio place" within the meaning of tho Vagrancy Act. Mr Stringer, in reply, referred to the evidence of Mr Franck as sufficient to prove the working of the machine. It was for the Bench to decide if its operation came under the definition of gambling. As to tho comparison of tho racecourse and highways, it must be bomo in mind that corporations wero empowered in certain circumstances to close roads and streets. Their power in that behalf wasjoxactly similar to tho power given to the trustees of the raaocourae, and while the racecourse was open (or the admission of the public it was "an open or public place" as much as any road or highway. The Bonoh having intimated their intention to reserve their deoision, Mr Joynt - called

Mr Broham, Superintendent of Police, who stated that he had received a letter from Mr Stringor asking him to second him in the S resent prosecution. The request had been eolined.

Mr Joynt also rend, amid roars 0° laughter, a letter from Mr Stringor on behalf of Messrs Snider and Drake to Messrs Hobbs and Goodwin. [The letter haß been printod and circulated publicly.] He said that notwithstanding the pious tone of the letter, it was evident it was a mere attempt to intimidate the defendants, as the present prosecutor was Alfred Drake, not Drake and Snider; the latter, much to the loss of tho publio, having dropped out of it.

Mr Whitefoord then said that the deoision of the Court would be given on next Wednesday, May 4 th.