THE CAULFIELD CUP.

King Country Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 309, 5 November 1910, Page 5

THE CAULFIELD CUP.

An Innocent Offence.

At the Magistrate's Court on Thursday, before. Mr F. O'B. Loughnan, S.M., the case, Police v. Otway, a charge that defendant on the loth October, conducted a sweepstake at Te Kuiti on the Caulfield Cup, was heard. Mr Finlay appeared for defendant, and Constable Matthews prosecuted. Constable J. A. Matthews deposed that on October 15th, Otway approached him with a view of taking a share in a sweep on the Caulfield Cup. Witness said "I'm not betting." Later on defendant approached him again and witness said "I'll chance a bob." He saw defendant at 8 p.m. and he had a list of the shareholder3-and the name of the horse. The prizes were to be £3, £1 10s and 10s. He did not win anything. Cross-examined by Mr Finlay: It was just before 10 a.m. when defendant first approached him. The second time it was about noon. —"Then in the meantime you got a copy of the Gaming Act?"—" Yes." Constable Capp gave similar evidence. When they saw defendant about noon defendant stated that he was doing very well. He had got 90 names. Both witness and Matthews took tickets. Defendant came later and showed him the name of the horse witness had drawn.

Cross-examined by Mr Finlay: He had an idea it wasn't correct to enter a sweepstake. He did not remember Otway asking him if there was any harm in it, and replying "I don't think so."

Mr Finlay said the information was laid under a provision of the Act which decided a sweepstake to be a lottery. The next section said on a racecourse if the value was under 5s a share, it was not a lottery A further clause said every person who establishes, commences or is a partner in any lottery is liable to a fine not exceeding £2OO. As shown, if on a race course, it would have been absolutely legal. There was no profit for the originator of the sweepstake. The action was a palpably innocent one, done without any knowledge of its illegality. The constable said "we never bet," and went back and looked up the Statute. (The Magistrate: Like the legal men). Pie quite admitted they did look up the law very j often. Incidentally he mentioned the police themselves were guilty of an offence. He quoted also section 64 making a partner in a lottery liable to a fine not exceeding £lO. A further clause read at the constable's request provided that police acting under instructions are not guilty of any offence. He admitted there had been a technical breach of the law, but it would be cruel to enter a conviction against his client, who held a some--1 what prominent pos'tion. The Magistrate said the man who ; was guilty of breaking tiic law knowi ingly was deserving of punishment, | but the man who innocently broke the i law was in another category. He ; was punished more for the encouragement of the ethers. The legislature ; has deliberately come to the conclusion ': that sweepstakes should be abolished. ! Mr Otway should have found out what i the law was. They all knew that they ; could not bet with bookmakers. He had to record a conviction or do some act to bring before the public the fact ; that the law cannot be disregarded. ': He quite believed Mr Otway had ! broken the law quite ignorantly, in a | sporting spirit, and quite innocently. j His was not a case that deserved punI ishment, and he would convict and discharge the defendant.