A BACKER'S STORY.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 32, 8 February 1928, Page 8

A BACKER'S STORY.

STRUCK A DOUBLE.

BUT DID NOT GET PAID

CHARGE OF BOOXMAKING FOLLOWS.

. The task of finding winners of horse

races has never been an easy one, and. to strike a winning double requires about |an ounce of judgment-and 15 ounces of .luck. William Henry Bonner, a hairdresser, is one of those who has a flutter on the horses, and at the last Grand National meeting at Christchurch Bonner invested five shillings on Beau Cavalier jand Whai'Dcliffe. Both' horses won and Bonner was entitled to collect £*20 5/ from Harry Marks, who Bonner alleged had laid him the double, and who had not paid. It was because of this transaction that Marks stood his trial on a charge of carrying on the business of a bookmaker oh August 6. Mr. Hubble appeared for the Crown and Mr. Dickson for the accused.

The evidence for the Crown was similar to that given when the case was before thii Magistrate's Court. Bonner, the principal witness, had a hairdressing saloon, and said that he had bets with Marks at different times. Day Bel!— Kawine was a losing double he had backed for the two "Northerns," and Rarangi was another horse ho had bet upon. Ihree or four weeks before the (*jand National meeting Marks came into the shop and asked Bonner if he wanted a double, and Bonner took £20 to 5/. The double won, but there was not sign of Marks with the money. After a couple of days had passed, Bonner called at Mark's home, but did not see lfim till later. This was on a tram car, and an altercation took place which ended in Bonner striking Marks. A witness, Frederick McDermott, said he was in Bonner s shop and saw 5/ handed over to Marks.

Detective Moon gave evidence that Marks had been a bookmaker.

In answer to Mr. Dickson the witness Bonner denied that he had been an agent for Marks, receiving 2/ in the £ for all bets taken in the shop. He had on one occasion borrowed £1 from Marks at Ellerslie and this he had paid, but he had never borrowed £5.

A Previous Conviction. The accused admitted that in April, 1927, he was convicted of hookmakin" and was fined £10. He had not made money while laying the odds and sincc the conviction in April lie had not bfecn a bookmaker. He then got work with an insurance company, leaving this in September to take a job at Penrose, where ho was still employed. Prior to April he ftad been bookrnakiiig and -Bonner had been an agent for him, receiving 10 per cent commission on moneys taken in bets. The firat he knew of Bonner's claim to having struck the winning .double—Beau Cavalier and Wharncliffe— was when he was told Bonner had . called at the. house. Later, when he met Bonner hi Coyle Street, Bonner asked for the money, saying he had struck the double. Witness repficd: You know the 5/ you gave me was part payment of the £5 I lent you. I have not had a double since April." There no of the "amount of the double being £10. by Mr. jaubhle accused admitted that when Bonner handed him 9/ the shop, AleDermott,. who was present asked what the mohey was for and Bonner replied it was for a double! Mr. Hubble: If the money was not m payment of a double why did vou not deny it?—McDermott was a complete stranger to ine, Und I thought it impertinence on his part to ask anv question at all. I simply ignored him. Can you give any reason why Bonner should' make the allegation that you laid him the winning double and did not pay?— No.

Except that it is malice?— Apparently Addressing the jury Mr. Dickson said •that whatever shortcomings Marks might have he was not the man who would shirk his legal responsibilities. The charge against Marks was that at the time of the alleged bet in Au<nist last lie was actually carrying on °the business of a bookmaker. Even if the bet, which was denied, was made with Bonner, that was merely one bet, and there was not a shred of evidence to show that he was carrying on business as a bookmaker. The evidence was that Marks was • really working for au insurance company.

(Proceeding.)