ANOMALIES OF GAMING ACT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 12, 8 February 1909, Page 2

ANOMALIES OF GAMING ACT.

LICENSED BOOKMAKERS MAY NOT ADVERTISE. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. Yesterday judgment was given by Mr. W. (i. Riddell in the charges against J. T. M'eKinnon. publisher, of selling a copy of New Zealand Truth of 2nd January, 1000, which contained advertisements or notifications by certain persons, viz., P. .1. Flaiiiiacran. C. Westbrook, E. Martin, and Stellin and Davidson, whereby it was made to appear that such persons were and each of them was willing to make bets or wagers on the result of certain horse races in New Zealand; that is to say, on the horses races to be run at Wellington on tlie 20th, 22nd and 23rd January, ISKM). The information was laid under section 30 of Hie flaming Act, 1908. The facts, his Worship stated, were not disputed, and it was proved tli/it with the exception of Martin the persons named

in tho information wore bookmakers residing in Wellington, and that they were, on the Trenthnm racecourse carrying out their business, that is, making liets on the result of the different races mi there on the whole or some of the days above inentiond. The Act defined a bookmaker as any person who acts o r carries on business as a bookmaker or turf commission agent, or who pains or endeavors to Rain his livelihood wholly or pitrtlv by betting or making wagers. The advertisements were general in character, calling the attention of the public to the fart that each of

the turf commission agents mentioned would be found at the principal race meetings, of whiich 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 bo drawn from such advertisements was that they were inserted for business purposes, business to lie transacted on racecourses, or, in other words, tlicy were intimations to the public tint these persons were prepared to bet with them on the racecourse on the event taking place there. If thf advertisements were not for business purposes, then the

onus was on the defendant to show this, and he had not done so. Subsection 2ft of section 31) 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 other person is willing to make any bet or wager on the result of any horse, race to be run in or out of New Zealand." The scope of the words "is made to appear" in this sub-section 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. Riddle, "Mr; Dunn's argument that section 30 was designed

to prevent street-betting is too narrow a ■ construction to place upon the section. 1 The object of the Act was not only to confine betting to the racecourse, but to regulate as far as possible all gamin;, betting and wagering, and to prevent the publication of information which woulil lead to betting, and although the Act provides that racing clubs may by virtue of such licenses lawfully make bets on racecourses, yet there is nothing in it to show that such a license carries with it the right to advertise. The license does not make the bookmaker exempt from the provisions pf section 30, but he holds it subject to •those provisions. I think defendant must be convicted of an offence under sub section 2 of section 30. He will be accordingly fined Co with costs £3 10s " vl'.llftl