THE GAMING ACT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2896, 15 September 1909, Page 57

THE GAMING ACT.

PUBLISHING BETTING LN'FORMA-

NEWSPAPER PROPRIETOR FINED. CHRISTCHURCH; September 7. Matthew F.~ Barnett, proprietor and publisher of Daylight, a sporting journal, was charged before Mr W. R. HaeeldCn, S.M., thy& morning with publsbing, on July 3, at Christchutch, " of betting by some person on a horse race to be run in,. Sew Zealand," contrary to section 30 of the Gaming Act. Defendant, who conducted his own cace, pleaded "Not guilty." Mr Stringer, K.C., explained that this was really a case to get an interpretation. The section provided that every person was liable \o a fine not exceeding £20 who printed., published, cold, or exhibited a newspaper or other document containing an advertisement or notification by, or on - behalf of, any person as to betting on any horse race to be Tun in or outside New Zealand. The charge against the defendant was that he published a newspaper called Daylight containing a notification by some person as to the betting on a horse race to be run in New Zealand.

The Magistrate: On behalf of wfiom? Mr Stringer : We don't say by whom. The real question is whether it is necessary for us to prove that tlxe betting was pabliblked on behalf of some specific person. We submit that it is not necessary. Trie 'Jefewdant is clearly within the meaning of the act in publifihing the betting. It is headed : " Betting Market. From t>ur own correspondents " Underneath are two of the Canterbury Jockey Club' 6 races, and 1300 to 16 is offered against Le Beau and Wirrall, and so on, with a iist of the various prices. We &ay the paper, therefore, contains a notification hy some person as to the betting on horse races run in New Zealand. The defendant will admit that the race was run in Xew Zealand. The case confoijns exactly to the section. Supposing it is published in the paper that Natator, or some fictitious name, will give information a.s to betting on horse races, and we cannot pro v e who Natator is, it will not matter. Ihe betting is admittedly from '"own corre^pond^nte. " It is a notification by ihcir Wellington correspondent that these price? will be given. There is nothing in the act to say that we have to prove whom iha betting is on behalf of.

The defendant said that there was nothing m section 30 of the act which mad§

it an offence for him to publish betting information aupplied by correspondents. Mr Stringer said there was no occasion to prove a particular person, but from what he understood it had to. be proved that it was published by, or on behalf of. a particular person. The Magistrate said he would not trouble to reserve his decision. me police were legally represented, but the defendant would not take the trouble to have the case argued from a legal point ot view. " I suppose you will appeal from my decision," he said, addressing defendant, "and engage counsel to argue the matter. A nominal fine is absurd m this case. You are fined £20, and costs.