THE GREAT "SWEEP" CASES.

Inangahua Times, Volume VII, Issue 1037, 18 January 1882, Page 2

THE GREAT "SWEEP" CASES.

[LYTTELTON TIMES.] If there is one social truth more evident than another it is that no man has ever been demoralised by a private sweep, Sweeps are the most fair, and the most innocent of all the amusements to be found on racecourses. By iheir side the practices of some bookmakers are absolutely ruinous, The practices of all bookmakers* are, by reason of the propect of larger gains which they offer, very demoralising, especially to the young. Between the totalisator and the system of private sweeps there ia but little difference. The money staked by individuals is, not, as a rule larger under the private system, while the chance of gain is, under the totalisator, large though the actual gain of the fewer gainers under the sweep system is greater. The difference between the two systems in the probable effect of each upon morals is so little as to be not worth discussing, and the effect so small as to be held thoroughly harmless. Yet the totalisator, which is . on the same footing as the sweep system, and the army of boomakers whose system is far more demoralising, and in individual instances dishonest as i well, are both allowed to flourish while the sweep is condemned. Anything more absurd than such a result it would be hard to imagine. It is the usual result of interference in the affairs of the world by the "unco quid." This part of the world has, we fear come to be governed by cant. Most people perfer common sense. These decisions ought, therefore, to lead to the removal of one absurdity from a foolish statute. But if the Act has been shown to be follish, what shall be said of the Magistrate of Wellington and the two noble Justices who agreed with his views ajbout punishment. This was a test case. Evidently these wiseacres are unaware that a test case is one which is brought before a Court to test the law upon a particular "question. They do not seem to know that it is quite an ordinary thing for people to get legal doubts cleared off by a judical decision after learned argument on both sides. They seem to be under the extraordinary impresson that people who are parties in a test case are law breakers upon whom deterrent punish ment must be inflicted. With an instinct worthy of the blind owl they imagined it to be their duty to examine carefully into addmitted facts. In their remarkable judgement they declare that "they think the facts proved." Nobody wanted to know what they thought of the facts, What was wanted, was their decision as to whether those facts constituted or did not con stitnte a breach of the law. That is what the defendants wanted. The defendants held that the facts did not consitute a breach of the lav/, and they went in Court to get a judicial oponion. The argument in suppport of their view was fair and resonable, as all argument must be in a test case. The Bench, in consequence, prosed

-.bout the- a*.v'ulni';-s. • . t" d'tlibei-ate : !i;v-.--h.v. 'of law by ciaiiu-:it .iiii-ii, a:-d ( contrived to iii- its sanctimonious ' opinion of wic)-{dness of persons who i venture to beljtve that'' sweeps are not j grossly inimoiil The only thing comforting about the whole story is that I one Justice — |he Hon. J. Johnston — was sensible chough to dissent from the decision. If all our Magistrates .and Justices were to talk tho goody rubbish that this sensible' dissentient refused to endorse, the country would be in a queer way.