BETTING CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIII, Issue 113, 14 May 1902, Page 3

BETTING CASE.

A CHRISTCHURCH PROSECUTION

VERDICT OF "NOT GUILTY."

(By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.)

CHRISTCHURCH, this day

A case of considerable interest to sporting folk was heard at the Supreme Court criminal sessions yesterday (Tuesday), when Matthew Barnett, a member of the firm of Barnett and Grant, bookmakers, was charged with having used his office for belting purposes. The accused pleaded not guilty. Detective Fahey said that he had known accused for some years, during which time accused had been a bookmaker. Accused had an office at 174 Hereford-street, which he had occupied for some years. There was a front office and a back room. Under search warrant on January 29 witness searched these premises and took away from them several thousands of letters, telegrams, and race cards, all relating to races. There were five or six hundredweight in all. The letters and telegrams were on files, and all related entirely to horse-racing and betting. The books contained entries of horse-racing and dividends, but the ledger contained entries of "goods." He produced a pamphlet relating to betting. It was entitled "Form at a Glance." and said there were thousands of copies' found In the office. The race cards produced were samples of large quantities found in the office. A cheque for £1 15/6 was found on accused himself. In his office and attached to it was an account showing a balance due by a person named Groper of £1 15/P: it ebowed results of betting on several races, winnings and loslnsrs. and a balance owing by the bettor of the amount mentioned. The book produced showed betting transactions on races throughout the colony, and the items in the aceour,*: nut in by witness, with the cheque attached, were renroduced from the book. The ledger produced containedGroper's account. The entries purported to refer to "goods," but they brought down a similar balance against Groper as that shown in the account. Throughout the ledpe^ there wsw* a number of accounts crediting people With payments for £3 for "goods," but in the office there were no "eroods" except what witness took away in the letter-book found. There wis a copy of a letter purporting to be written by accused acknowledsrinsr receipt of £1, addressed to one G. Satchel!, and a letter was also found in the office signed "George Safehell," givinsr Barnett and Grant instructions as to the disposal of 20/ ("enclosed") on certain horses In certain races, and the press copy In the letter-book was evldent'v a reply to George Satchell's letters. Witness a1?o produced letters from E. Sutherland. G. F. Butcher, and others of the same character as the one from Satchell, and for considerably larger amounts, replies to which were In the letter-book. • These were samples of many found in the office. Witness had had the premises under surveillance for some time. On January 2 last, when there was a race meeting in Auckland, he watched the office, and saw 30 or 40 men go in at different, periods, and telegraph boys were corr-in"-ing. The men consulted race cards and then went into the office, coming out again a few minutes afterwards. Documents referring to betting on this meeting were found in the office. Similar occurrences were noticed on January 25. on the occasion of a race meeting In Wellington, again on January 2P-, on the rlay of the Takapuna races, and also on the day on which the search warrant was "■iveri effect to, when no races Were held. There were no visitors to the office when witness searched the office. There were two clerks there, Whelan and ?^i cThe board produced was found in, tne office It was similar to the boards .used for showing totalisator results. Witness also found In th 6 office £177 5/3 in money,

which was handed back to accused by Mr Harper, counsel for the defence. Witness found no documents in the office relating to private matters. Accused was wanting- out of the office when witness went in, and did not know that witness wa3 coming. Detective Marsack went down the street to Barnett, who had gone towards the bank, and Barnett oame back with him. It was then that Barnett was searched and the documents referred to found upon him. During the time he had Barnett's office under observation the men paid their visits between 2.30 p.m. and 4 o'clock. He had seen result boards for football and cricket matches hung out before tobacconists'" shops, but they did not have columns for the numbers of the races, "scratchings" and "dividends." They had not a heading "Results." He had known Barnett as a bookmaker for five years. Arthur Currie, clerk to Barnett and Grant, objected to give evidence, on the plea that if Barnett were found guilty of the charge laid aginst him witness might also be incriminated for assisting in the business. His Honor asked him if he swore that his evidence would be likely to incriminate himself, and, on being answered in the affirmative, witness was ordered to stand down. Other witnesses for the prosecution declined to give answers which were calculated to incriminate them. Mr Harper called no witnesses. Addressing the jury, he said that straightout betting in itself was not an offence against The law, but the keeping of a house for betting purposes was an offence. It was perfectly legitimate for Barnett to be a bookmaker, but the otfeiK'e- chareed against him was very grave, and he urged tne jury to be very accurate in their examination of the evidence that had b°en g'wn. th* chief ojwhich was the detective's, which he reviewed at length. He made a strong point of the fact that there had been no advertisement of Barnett's office at 17-1 Hereford-street as a place for conducting betting business, and in all the literature found in the office by the police there was no invitation to the public to come to 174 Hereford-street for betting purposes. Barnett and Grant advertised that at Dunedin and Christchurch they did business, but the address given in the book " Form at a Glance," which -was a perfectly legitimate book, was a i.nx at ti-ie post-office, He held that ini.ons going into the office after races wore run was no evidence against his client, neither was the finding of a re-sult-board in the office. The essential want in the prosecutor's case was the absence of an advertisement asking the public to come to the office in Herefordj; eur ,. t for betting purposes. Dealing with Groper's matter, he held that there was no pi'oof whatever that Groper had ever been near tb» place or had ever Paid any money to Barnett for betun* purposes, and the cheque ana account were not found in the office but in Barnett's pocket. The other letters were oidy records of bets, which were perfectly )<-gal and were not evidence at all thai these bets were made in the office. In regard to the witnesses who had refused'to give evidence, it was their right to do so if they thought their answers would incriminate them, and it was not fo" the iury to draw inferences adverse to Barnett' from their refusals, because the law was vastly different here from that In England. Mr Harper laid stress on the fact that the detective had known this office for five years, and said that it Had heer k»r*' f"' **«*"> purposes all that time, but Barnett had not been disturbed until last January. His Honor summed up, and said that the charsres against Banv'.C ww sln<p. lv that he kept a common gaming house, and that it was for the jury to consider whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that Barnett's office was a common gamins house. The law in New Zealand made those visiting such houses equally guilty with the persons who kept Hem. In England it was different only -i-o keepers being the offenders. In the boy that day there had been several witnesses who had declined to give evidence because of possible incrimination of themselves by the answers they might g've They were quite within their rights and if such evidence was ever to J available to the Court, the Court must be authorised to give such ."witnesses an indemnity. Hl* Honor reviewed the evidence, and explained the law, at some length and said that if, in the opinion of the jury, this place was known to be si place where people could go and bet, then the jury would bring In a verdict accordingly. The jury found a verdict of Not guilty" and accused was discharged.