SCIENTIFIC BETTING

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 486, 16 October 1928, Page 1

SCIENTIFIC BETTING

APPEAL DISMISSED “ACT NOT AMBIGUOUS” Giving judgment in the Supremo Court this morning, Mr. Justice Smith dismissed the appeal of Edward Willerson Warren, exploiter of the •Elimination Method of Scientif 9 Totalisator Speculation,” against liis conviction last February by Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., under section 63b of the Gaming Act. Warren was then fined £25. The appeal was argued by Mr. I. J, Goldstine for appellant and Mr. V. N. Hubble for Chief-Detective Hammond. Appellant had been originally charged with sending a circular to Constable G. A. Haines with intent to induce him to apply to Warren for advice for the purpose of betting on horse races. The method was styled the “greatest historic discovery the turf had ever known.” The price of the advice was £lO 10s. “Upon a review of the whole of the magistrate's judgment,” said his Honour in delivering judgment, I regard his finding as to the intent of the appellant as including the making of bets in any manner whether by investment on the totalisator or otherwise.” Much reliance was placed by counsel for appellant on the contention of the words “isuch bet or wager,” as used in the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1861, and Amending Act, 1885, and the conflicting opinions expressed by English and Australian courts, continued his Honour. After quoting law the Judge expressed the opinion that the words were clear and not ambiguous. It was clear that the words in question were sufficient to cover the magistrate’s finding as to the appellant’s intent. Mr. Goldstine had submitted that “such bet or wager” must relate to the historical construction of section | 36 of the Act relating to the keeping of premises for betting. Apart •from his main argument, counsel had contended the appeal should be allowed upon the ground that as the respondent w r rote for the circular appellant had no intent to induce respondent to apply. His ; Honour pointed out that it was not respondent’s state of mind that was at issue but the appellant’s. The argument was met by the magistrate’s j finding of fact on the point. It was further argued that the circu- ! lar related only to totalisator invest- | ments, which form of wagering was j legal, and it was argued it was no j offence to advise anyone to invest on ] the totalisator. The magistrate had ! found that the intent of the circular | included arr intent to induce applicaions for advice, not merely as to ( totalisator investments, but as to I betting on future horse races otherwise than by totalisator investment. His Honour decided that on an appeal on a point of law he could not | interfere with the magistrate’s finding of fact unless there was no evidence ; to support it. With regard to counsel’s submission that the circulars referred only to past 1 wagers, whereas section 63 (b) referred only to future wagers, his Honour said he had only to repeat that it was not the terms of the circular but the intent of the appellant which j was in issue. ' In dismissing the appeal the Judg# allowed £8 8s costs against appellant.