WHAT IS A TOTALISATOR?

NZ Truth, Issue 1178, 28 June 1928, Page 3

WHAT IS A TOTALISATOR?

(Prom "N.Z. Truth's" Special WHEN the Christchurch police looked into the "tote" arrangements at the Metropolitan Trotting Club's grounds at Addington during the course of a meeting m February, they saw a system m operation which looked to them to be very much against the Gaming Act:

The result was that Harold E. Goggin, acting-secretary of the club, was haled before Magistrate E. D. /Mosley; .charged that, being the servant of the otub, he did unlawfully permit to be received an Investment for the totalisator elsewhere than at the totailsator itself.

The decision of the magistrate In the case, when he recorded a conviction, will have a far-flung influence upon other clubs m the Dominion whloh may be following such a system.

The whole trouble arose over two separate windows— one*, m the stewards' stand and another m the members' stand. These windows were not conneoted with the total isator, but they were used for the purpose of receiving investments Tor the "tote."

The window m the members' stand was stated to close six minutes before the totalisator and that m the stewards' stand five minutes before. The same official came from the

Christchurch Representative.) main totalisator and checked the tickets m each of the two boxes; all such sales were then recorded on the main "tote." *

In giving judgment against the defendant, Magistrate Mosley remarked that it seqmed clear to him that the word "totalisator" meant the building m which bets were made and the machinery by means of which they were recorded, totalled, exhibited, dividends computed and the plaoa where they were. Accepting this definition as the correct one, the magistrate was of opinion that a small room or box-office, n ot connected . with the totalisator (as defined), was not part of the totalisator; that any member, agent, officer or servant of any racing club who permitted^ to be received or received any investment on the totalisator m such

room or box-office

committed a breach of section 32 of the Gaming Act.

In the magistrate's opinion there was no legal difference between a Box-office situated m the stewards' stand and one situated m the members' motor-car paddock a quarter of a mile away. . As the case was brought , by way of a test action, the defendant was convicted and ordered merely to pay costs.