A BOOKMAKER'S SCOOP.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 293, 10 December 1910, Page 17

A BOOKMAKER'S SCOOP.

ENGLISH BETS IN HOLLAND. --. £750 DAMAGES FOB I_J_BEL IN .__, : "TRUTH." - Mr Hermann Francis Smith and Mr Jacob de Yong, trading at Amsterdam, aa Smith and Young, t-arf accountants and bookmakers, sued Mr Henry Labouchere to recover damages for an alleged libel published in "Truth." ' y . The defendant .admitted the publication, -but denied the innuendo which had been put upon the words complained of. Mr Marshall Hall, opening the case for the plaintiffs, said his clients were Dutchmen who had for many years canted on a sueeefisful business as bookmakers'-at Amsterdam. On July 14, 1909, there was published in "Truth" the following paragraph'! - - i , "To .the sorrow of many creditors over' here, Arnold and Wood, bookmakers, lately announced that as .they were unable to pay their debts they had decided to "close down" their office at the Hague. Immediately afterwards a. new business of the same character was opened up in the name of Smith "and Young, at Amsterdam.

This may be only a coincidence; but still I shall not -be altogether surprised if it turns' out that Arnold and Wood and Smith and Young are all of .them one and the same person, and that he is, moreover, an old acquaintance under other aliases. Be that as it may, only very foolish. people will bet with these touting bookmakers." Mr Jacob de Yong, one of the plaintiffs, gave evidence to the effect that publication, of the paragraph complained of had seriously Injured his firm's business. His firm never had connection with Messrs Arnold and "Wood. His firm held a license to bet on the racecourse and at his office. Mr Marshall Hall: Is there an equivalent in Holland to what is called Tattersails' ring in England? The Witness: Yes, the Trotting and Racing Association. Have .you refused to pay any bet you liave .lost? —No. All bets honestly won have been paid. r: in cross-examination by Mr Shearman, the witness said that a book of rales which .his firm had sent to England stated that the firm was authorised-by the Dutch Government to make bets. Is your firm really authorised by the (Dutch Government?— The Dutch Government allows n8 to be bookmakers ln Holland. . Is that -the only sense in -which yo-n are "authorised" by the Dutch Government?— Yes. . ,-,• ....- ~: - .. Does the Dutch' Government authorise anyone to 'bet who wants to do "so?— Yes. The nature of your business Is to receive cash as a, deposit ..for., bets -.upon ' horse racing?— Yes, and we give credit as well. Is not the greater-part of the business from England receiving cash upon deposit}. —Yes, from small people, but with other people we open credit accounts.-" Do you receive sums as small as.,a shilling in cash?—' From a shilling upwards. Do you send many thousands of circulars' to England:—Yes. Mr Justice Darting: Why do you pat In the circular that a person might make a 'bet with you without allowing his clerk or banker to know It?

The witness replied that he did not know, how the -paragraph hatne to be ".inserted. The circular was drawn up by a native of Holland who had a good knowledge, of English, - Mr. J. W. H. Byrne, chartered accountant, of Graeechurch-street, stated that he had examined the plaintiffs' books ! which dealt with their business In England, and these disclosed the following receipts and payments:— ■'• • . '-"■' - -.'

1809. Received: Paid to Clients. £ a. d. £ s. d. ..March 82 9 4 237 .0 2. April 609 2 11 .... 319 3 9 May ...... 926 15 6 531 1 6 Jane 687 18 10 .... 333 5 0 July 1 to 17 525 5 0 147 6 3. The total profit distributed over . five months was £993 55., and the net profit was £776 ls sd. In March of this-year the plaintiffs received only £8 Bs. 6d. ; ln April, £33 Bs. 7d. ; and in May, £33 ss. 3d. Mr. Shearman submitted that defendant was entitled to criticise' the .business and methods of bookmakers. A LESSON PROM NEW ZEALAND WANTED. Mr Justice Darling, summing up the case to the Jury, said the only question to be considered was the amount' of damages to which the plaintiffs. were entitled.' The case arose owing to the law with regard to betting and gaming, which' was distinguished from much of the rest of the law, "being in a very chaotic condition. While Parliament had taken certain action with regard to betting, it had never forbidden newspapers publishing the. odds. That would be much too obvious a means to take, (laughter.) There appeared to be some similarity between the bookmaker and the bee.. The former made a good deal of money in the summer which he could not make during the winter.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, and awarded them £750 damages. His Lordship having left the court, judgment was not entered.