Vockler v The King

26 CLR 366

KING AND ANOTHER

RESPONDENTS. Gaming and Betting-Advertisement-Information as to horse-races-Intent to

induce application to house-Betting-houseGaming and Betting Act 1912 (N.S.W.) (No. 25 of 1912), sec. 47.

Sec. 47 of the Gaming and Betting Act 1912 (N.S.W.) provides (inter alia) that whosoever publishes or causes to be published any advertisement " (b) with intent to induce any person to apply to any house, office, room, or place,

26 CLR 367

or person with a view of obtaining information or advice respect to " any event or contingency relating to horse-races, &., shall be liable to a certain penalty.

Held, that in order to constitute an offence under the section it is not neces- sary that the house, office, room or place should be one used as a betting- house within the meaning of the Act.

Special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales Ex parte Vockler, 19 S.R. (N.S.W.), 163, refused.

APPLICATION for special leave to appeal.

At the Central Police Court, Sydney, before Mr. McKensey S.M., an information was heard whereby John Charles King charged that Alfred Vockler did on 14th March 1919 cause to be published in the Sun newspaper an advertisement with intent to induce any person to apply to an office situate at Gibbs Chambers, 7 Moore Street, Sydney, with a view to obtaining information or advice with respect to an event or contingency relating to a horse-race.

The advertisement stated that Vockler was the editor and founder of Vockler's Turf Searchlight, and contained the following state- ments :- " A treble programme will be included in Vockler's Turt Searchlight issued at 9 a.m. to-morrow. Rosehill, Rosebery, Flemington (Newmarket Handicap), Australian Cup. The Search- light forecasted the winning double last year-Cetigne and Defence. Will history. repeat itself ? Wait, watch and see. The Search- light's great record for consistency. 27 winners for the last five meetings." 'The Searchlight is only obtainable at Gibbs Chambers, 7 Moore Street, Sydney." The issue of the Turt Searchlight for 15th March 1919 contained tips for various forthcoming horse- races There was no evidence that the office at Gibbs Chambers was used as a betting-house.

The defendant, having been convicted, obtained a rule nisi for a prohibition on the ground (inter alia) that the publication of the advertisement was not an offence within the meaning of sec. 47 of the Gaming and Betting Act 1912. The Full Court dis- charged the rule nisi: Ex parte Vockler 1.

The defendant now applied for special leave to appeal from that decision to the High Court.

119 S.R. (N.S.W.), 163.

26 CLR 368

Bryant, in support of the application. Part III. of the Gaming and Betting Act 1912, in which sec. 47 occurs, deals with the suppres- sion of betting-houses. The words "house, office, room, or place are used in the other sections in Part III. as meaning a house, &., used as a betting-house, and they should be read with that meaning in sec. 47 (Prior v. Sherwood 1 ). That section is intended to cover the case of an invitation to a place where the invitee will obtain advice as to a bet to be made there, and does not include a case where the advice to be given will be as to bets to be made on a race-course, which are permitted by the Act. [Counsel also referred to Cox v. Andrews 2; Stoddart v. Sagar 3; Potter v. Ridsdale 4.

BARTON J. The Court will not grant special leave. Speaking for myself, I do not see any reason for doubting the conclusion at which the Supreme Court arrived.

ISAACS J. I agree.

GAVAN DUFFY J. I agree.

RICH J. I agree:

Special leave to appeal refused. Solicitors, Webster &Maclean, Sydney.

13 C.L.R. 1054. 212 Q.B.D., 126. 3(1895) 2 Q.B., 474. 4

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Vockler v The King involved an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia following a conviction in the Central Police Court, Sydney, and a subsequent discharge of a rule nisi by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant, Alfred Vockler, was charged with causing an advertisement to be published in the Sun newspaper with the intent to induce persons to apply to an office at Gibbs Chambers, 7 Moore Street, Sydney, for information or advice concerning a horse-race, contrary to section 47 of the Gaming and Betting Act 1912 (N.S.W.). The advertisement promoted "Vockler's Turf Searchlight," which contained tips for various horse-races and stated it was obtainable at the specified office. Crucially, there was no evidence that the office itself was used as a betting-house.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the conviction under section 47 of the Gaming and Betting Act 1912 was valid, specifically concerning the interpretation of the phrase "house, office, room, or place" within the context of the advertisement. The applicant argued that, given the surrounding sections of Part III of the Act dealt with the suppression of betting-houses, the terms used in section 47 should be interpreted to mean only premises used as a betting-house. He contended that the section was intended to cover invitations to places where bets would be made, not where advice was given for bets placed elsewhere, such as on a racecourse.

Barton J., speaking for the High Court, indicated that special leave to appeal would not be granted, stating he saw no reason to doubt the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court. This implies the High Court agreed with the Supreme Court's reasoning that section 47 did not require the "house, office, room, or place" to be a betting-house within the meaning of the Act. The legal principle applied was that the plain wording of section 47, which prohibited advertisements intended to induce applications for information or advice regarding horse-races, did not necessitate that the location where such information or advice was obtained be a licensed betting-house.

Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established