LUCKY BETTOR

Hokitika Guardian, 24 October 1933, Page 3

LUCKY BETTOR

AS “PUJNTER. ’

SPECULATION AT RANQW3CK.

A remarkable story of the. success of an- Australian bookmaker—not in the laying. of odds,-but as a “punter” at Bandvvick, was told recently in a case that, came before, the Supreme Gou t in Sydney. The man conc.erned is Ernest Wail Vandenberg, who was registered as a bookmaker by the Australian Racing Club. He was not registered by the Australian Jockey Club, and therefore his operations at Randwick were, confined to the backing of horses. The matter has come up in the form of a dispute with the -Taxation Commissioner, who claims that an ex L ra £4OOO is due to the department as income tax- on account of Vandenberg’s winnings in the four years T 927-20. In these years, Vandenberg received the sums of £3500, £IOOO, £7OOO and £5050 which were not taken into account in bis taxation returns. Vandeuberg’s. argument is that tin bets were purely .speculative investments by reason of his special knowledge of horses’ chances and] that the money he speculated with was from his private resources and did not form part of his capital as a bookmaker. For these, reasons his counsel contended that the gains should be treated like “speculative profits made on the Stock Exchange” and not as assessable for Income tax. 1 Counsel for the .Taxation Commissioner,, maintained, that such a system of betting, based upon “the information of persons,-in the best position to judge,” must be regarded as a “prrfitmaking. venture,” and therefore that the profits are subject to taxation.

Vandenberg } according to -the story told, made practically all the money by backing, one ,-horse—Amqunis.- The basis of those operations was admittedly “information received*” and! Mr W. Pearson, owner of Amounis, gave evidence confirming Vandenberg’s statements, Pearson said lie had been a .friend of the Vandenberg family for a long time and had known Ernest “ever since he was a little hoy.” He had made a point of giving the latter first-hand, information about Amounis and his chances, . !

Vandenberg stated .that he had backed Amounis on 22 occasions when he' won.. Once, he said, he hacked A.mounis for the William stown Cup at 3 to ]—he put onr£6oo. and won £IBOO. On another occass.’on he made “the biggcst.bet of, his life,” backing Amounts with Alldritt, another.bookmaker. “Aildritt stood underneath a tree,” he s aid, “and ,he called 7to 2 (be field. 1 said to him I will have a monkey (£500) oii Bill, and he challenged me i-gain’' So Vandenberg put £IOOO on at 7 to 2, and as Amounis won, he got £3503 'fpr bi,s.„yen|p / ie. ..‘,YaiiclenbgrgJ,sg,id he offered afterwards to give Pearson half of his bet, hut the owner of Amounis declined. The evidence show d tint, Ygnden.berg was. aided in his speculative activities by his mother..

. When Mr John James Hackett, one? a well-known bookmaker, was call d. lie stated that in 1929 he laid a bet cf three to one with Vandenberg—£9)o to .£3oo—of course, against Amounis. Be recalled “the mother of this boy coining lip when the horse was two to One ,and saying, “,I will have-£4OOO, to£2000.” Backet said, “I can’t do that, because I have just laid your son £2O ) to £3OO, and the test I can lay vou is; £2OOO to £1000.” Mrs Vandenberg took it, and Amounis won..jHackett remarked, “I lest more in fielding in that race than on any other race Bn my career.” The case was adjourned tor further argumentt.; , 1 • ;