TOTALISATOR DIVIDENDS

Hokitika Guardian, 24 December 1925, Page 3

TOTALISATOR DIVIDENDS

INDICATION OF AMOUNT . WEI .LINUTOX XE WSP AP ER FIN Fl) WELLINGTON. Dec. 17. Judgment was delivered by Mr E. Page S..AL, this alternoon in ilie ease in wheel) the police prosecuted Blundell Bros., Ltd., proprietors ot he "Evening rest.’ in respect 10 the puolieatiun of statements as to dividends paid by the lotalisator or as to starling prices in tenant races at the \\ elliiigtnn Racing Ciun’s meeting at I renliiam on Oct-ii/.v k-l last. I lie .Magistrate ordered cun v tel ion on the ground that there had been a breach of the statute in regard to the publication both of dividends and starting price. The iacts, said .Mr Page, were admitted. and the question to lie decided was whether the material published constituted a, breach of the provisions of the Act. The section was very wide in its terms. It prohibited the publication ot "any statement as to the dividend paid on investments on the 10talisator" or "as to starting prices." With regard to dividends llie .Magistrate saidH think there can be no doubt that the report published by defendants contains statements as to dividends paid. In the first race, for example, the dividends paid on the totalise tor for first and second horses were £l2 4s and £1 tjs (id respectively. Defendants' paper states that Askari returned a dividend of over £l2. while .Merry Singer’s hackers showed a small

profit. Dividends in other races are somewhat similarly described, it i* true that the exact amount of dividend is nowhere stated, hut the approximate amount is given. Askari’.s dividend is said to he ‘over £l2,’ and in my opinion that is a •statement as to tine dividend paid.’ Similarly in the account of each of the succeeding race defendants’ paper contains statements as to dividends paid. “With regard to starting prices, it. wa.s contended by counsel that the slaiule. which was passed at a time' when the business of bookmaking was not an unlawtul one. referred only to Malting prices as quoted by bookmakers. I do not agree witli this view. I llijnk that the words include starting prices as shown on tlie lotalisator on the close cd business, that is to say, the price that a horse will pay on the totalisator for winning or running se-

cond. Some of the defendants’ references in this connection do not, in my opinion, contravene the stauto. Thus, statements that ‘Captain Sarto, Sir Fanciful and Merry Singer carried most money.’ and that ‘Tiega wound up favourite, with plenty of support for Mundane, Rivalry and Beacon Light.’ though they contain references ro the ladling market, cannot. L think, fairly he said to he 'statement as to starting prices.' Starling prices are neither named or indicated. There is nothing from which they can even a|>proximately be calculated. On tin* other hand, in describing the fourth race, defendants say. ‘Bisox wa.s an even-money favourite'.’ This is a definite statement of the price at which the. horse was starting, and comes within the statute. There has, therefore, been a breach of the statute' in regard to the publication both of dividend and starting price, and defendants must be convicted.” Mr I’. S. K. Macassey intimated .Dial ho wa.s willing to withdraw two ol the other three informations, and lie would leave the penally in his Worship's hands. He did not regard the ease as a lest one. as the ode nee was too clear for argument. Mr If. F. O’Leary, wlm appeared for defendants, said that after Octoln'r 24. when it was known that- the- police' authorities had taken notice of the stall-incuts published, Blundell Bros, had scrupulously retrained tnun making any further reference which could roj4«i!‘fl lns ;i broilc!i <*l tut* At't. They looked upon the ease as a test, as for a considerable time newspaper proprietors had been uncertain as to how far they could go and as to whether the Act merely prohibited publication ot the exact dividend. Ml O’Leary said bis clients had no desire to Mont, tlie law. end he submitted the ease should be dealt wild as a test. On the first charge' the Magistrate convicted and fined delendants £0 and costs. On the second charge they were convicted and di-clcnrged. Mr Macassey withdrew the either tv.o informations.