THE GAMING ACT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9028, 15 January 1908, Page 5

THE GAMING ACT.

PUBLISHING TOTALISATOR DIVIDENDS IN RAGE BOOKS. A WAIRARAPA PRINTER FINED. (Special Reporter.) The first case in the dominion arising out of the new Gaming and Lotteries Act, passed last session, was heard at Martinborough, yesterday, before Mr W. P. James, B.M. The defendant was Tho.uar. McCracken. proprietor of the " Wairarapa Standard," and he was charged on two informations with having printed and published a certain document, to wit, a race book cctainijig the dividends paid in respect of a certain race run at the Lower Valley Jockey Club's annual meeting on December 26th last, contrary to the Gaming and Lotteries Act. Constable Warneford prosecuted, and defendant was represented by Mr R. W. Tate. The first witness called was Thomas Frederick Evans, secretary of the Lower Valley Jockey Club, who produced a card of the second day's races of the club's annual meeting,held on December 27th. Tenders were called for the printing of the cards, and that of the "Standard" newspaper, of which defendant is the proprietor, was accepted. For the first day's races the race books were printed as desired. For the second day's books witness sent the acceptances to the printer, but gave no instructions that the results of the previous day's racing were to appear in the books. It had been the custom in the past to give the results and dividends in connection with the first day's racing in the second day's books, and on this occasion defendant had followed the previous custom. In giving his instructions to the printer, as to printing of the books, witness specified that they were to be done the same as in previous years. He said nothing about inserting the dividends in the books, and did not supply the printer with the dividends for publication. Witness went on to say that it was the custom to sell the race books away from the racecourse; they were always sold in the streets. For the last meeting, Pryor Gilbert was engaged to sell the books on commission. o~i the second day of the races the books were handed to him at witness' office in Martinborough, and he was at liberty to sell them where he pleased. Witness did not notice that the dividends were printed in the books until after the latter had gone out It was, a pure oversight, and when his attention was called to the fact, he did not know what steps to take. In cross-examination by Mr Tate, witness said he did not suppose it was an intentional breach of the Act on the part of the printer. Pryor Gilbert, newspaper runner, said he was employed by the Lower Valley Jock,ey Club to sell race books i on December 26th and 27th On the 27th the books were given out to him at the secretary's office by F. Muir, after being counted. He then went out into the streets and disposed of the books as quickly as possible. He sold thirty or forty in the town. He never looked to see the contents of the books.

Thomas McCracken, defendant, deposed that he printed the books for the meeting 011 26th and 27th ult., but diu not publish them. He had no intention of committing a breach of the Act. He had ' no knowledge! that the books were unlawfully printed or sold. He had often printed books for .race meetings, but lie never knew of the books being sold in the streets at the time of the meeting. He had not seen a copy of the Gaming Act before the present proceedings. Charles de Lacey, employee at the "Standard" office, said he was instructed to print the books. He telephoned to the secretary of the club asking for instructions as to how the books were to be printed, and he was told to do them the same as the preceding year, with the exception of a specified alteration to the cover. The "copy " for the second day's books was was brought to the office by a mesenger. This contained the list of horses, but no dividends in connection with the preceding day's racing. From his own experience and having regard to the sacretary's instructions that the books were to be precisely the same as the previous year, witness printed the first day's diviJends in the second day'i book. Hs fcelieved that that was what was wanted. By Constable Warneford: Witness was aware that the books were sold in the streetsS He did not know of an instance where the sale of race books was confined to the racecourse. Witness had no instructions not to print the dividends, and in doing so he was not aware that a breach of the Act was occasioned. Mr Tate, for the defence, raised three points. The first was that no offence was disclosed on the true construction of sub-section 4 of the Act under which the prosecution was taken. Under this section four separate charges could be made, but I the offeree in this insttance was 1 made lawful under sub-section 6 if the publication was confined to race courses only. In the present case, counsel submitted, the printer printed the dividends innocently and the club published them innocently and the fault lay with the sailer of the books by selling them outside the course. To hold that the printer was liable would be » unreasonable. Counsel cited authorities for the rejection of the literal construction of the section previously quoted, and argued that having orintud for the club, which could lawfully use the printed matter, the reponsibility of the printer ceased as soon as the race hooks were handed over to the club. Secondly, defendant was entitled to acquittal on account of the absence of guilty intention, which was a necessary ingredient to nearly every offence. The third point was that the race btioks that were printed were not documents of the same class as a newspaper, and the prosecution should fail under that heading. The Magistrate held that the defendant was careless. He had had opportunities to make himself, and should have made himself, conversant with the Act. Referring to sub-section 6 of the Act, he took it that the vision embodied therein was only to enable racing clubs to be in a position to publish dividends on the racecourses for the benefit of the public, who, as investors, were entitled to

know. Being the first case under the new Act, and taking all the circumstances into consideration, the offence did not call for severe punishment. The minimum penalty of 20s would be inflicted, with costs amounting to £1 18s Bd, on the charge of printing. The charge of publishing was withdrawn.