BETTING ADVERTISEMENTS.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXVI, Issue 10067, 8 February 1909, Page 4

BETTING ADVERTISEMENTS.

| (Pep. Press Association.) ( Wellington, 'February 7. Judgment- v.'as given by Mr W. G. Kidno!!. S.M., yesterday in the charges airainft J. T. M'lvinnon, publisher, of selling a ropy of the newspaper Xew Zealand Trutii of 2nd January, 1909, wliich contained advertisements or notifications by certain persons—V. J. Flanaghan, C. Wcstbrook, K. Martin, and Stellin and Davidson—whereby it was made to appear that sueli persons were and each of tlirm was willing to make bets or wagers on ike result of certain horse races, to bur.in at Wellington on the 20th, 22nd, am! 23rd January," 1909. The information was laid under section 50 of tlie Gaming Act. 1903. The facte, his Worship stated, were not disputed, and it was proved, that with tiie exception of Martin, the persons named in the information were bookmakers, residing in Wellington, and that they were on" the Trentham racecourse carrying on their business, that is, making bets on the result of the different races run thereon, the whole or some of the days above mentioned. The Act defined a Ixsokmakcr as any person who acts or carries on business as a bookmaker or turf commission agent, or who gains or endeavors to gain his livelihood wholly or partially by~ betting or making wagers. The advertisements were generaf in character. calling the attention of the public to the fai-t that each of the turf commission agents mentioned ■would be found at the principal race meetings, of which the Wellington meeting was one. In Stellin and Davidson's case it was stated that they executed commissions on all the principal racecourses. The ordinary inference to be -drawn from such advertisements was that they -were inserted for business purposes. tho business to be transacted onracecourses, or in other words they were intimations to the public that these persons were prepared to bet with thc-m on the racecourse, and on the events taking place there. If the advertisements were not for business purposes, then the onus was on the defendant to show this, and he had not done so. Subsection 2 of section 30 of the Gaming Act made every person liable to a fine not exceeding £2O "who prints, publishes, sells or publicly exhibits any newspaper which, contains any .advertisement or notification by or on behalf of any person whereby it is made to appear that such person or any other person is willing to make any bet or wager on the result of any horse race to be run in or out of Xew Zealand." The scope of the words as made to appear in this subsection was very wide, and showed that- the words of the advertisement need not be direct, so long as their meaning was clear. "I think," said Mr RiddelL "Mr Dunn's argument that section 30 was designed to prevent street betting is too narrow a construction to place upon the section. Tho object of the Act was not only to confine "betting to the racecourse but" to regulate as far as possible all gaming, betting and wagering, and to prevent the publication of information which would lead to betting, and although the Act provides that racing clubs may license bookmakers who may, by virtue of such license, lawfully make bets on a racecourse, yet there is nothing in it to show that such a license carries with it tbe right to advertise. The license does notmake tbe bookmaker exempt from the provisions of section 30, bnt he holds it subject to those provisions. I think defendant mast be convicted of an offence under subsection 2 of section 30. He will be accordingly fined £5, with co6ts of £3 l<k."