BOOKMAKERS IN COURT.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 11398, 8 October 1902, Page 4

BOOKMAKERS IN COURT.

FURTHER FINES INFLICTED.

Before Mr Beetham, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, a number of bookmakers appeared to answer charges of having, some at Riceart-n on August 12t_, and 14th, and othejs a t Addington en August 9th, committed a breach of the Gaming and Lotteries Act by betting. Mr Cresswell appeared for the police. Richard Apps (Mr Harper) pleaded' guilty to having betted at Riccarton on August 14th, but not guilty to -saving betted at Addington on August 9th. Detective- "Fabey and Ward stated that they bad seen accused on tha fence 'between tihio Show Grounds and the Trotting Grounds. They heard him call'ng the odds, and had seen money passing between hira and other men. TKe defence was an absolute •denial of these statements. The Magistrate fined accused £5 and costs in ihe first case, and ls and costs in the second. The accused, in answer to the Magistrate, stated that he ihad been working for the Gesur Company, and had been engageu at bookmaking for about ten years. The Magistrate: -'Making a good living at it?" The Accused: "No, Tm -not. I think I will have to go and wo_k." The Magistrate: "A very good thing for you." John Smith (Mr Harper) was convicted of a (Ktmilar offence -at Riccarton on August 14th. Mr Harper stated that he had already been fined twice. The Magistrate inflicted a fine of £5 and costs- William Barry (Mr Harper), for a _u__laT offence at Riccarton on August 10th, was fined £5 and costs. Harry Amos (Mr Harper), for having betted at Addington on August 9th, waa similarly dealt with. The case against Daniel McLaren (Mr Harper), charged with having betted at Riocarton on August _2t_>, was adjourned, the accused being unable, through illness, io appear. In the cases against D. Oxenham, George Hyde, Charles Baker, Harry Ray, and Ned Doyle, for all of whom Mr Harper appeared, and pleaded guilty, each, accused -was fined £5 -and costs. Tim Troy (Mr Harvey), charged with having betted at Riocarton on August 14th. pleaded not guilty. Detective Fahey Stated that he saw the accused on the date, and at the place mentioned. He had a board, supported by three lege, placed on the ground. On the board were the names and numbers of the horses, and he -was plying -is calling. Accused's name was on the board. Accused had remained stationed tin front of tha totalisator for one or two races, after which he had shifted about twenty yards closer to the course, where he ____a__ed during the whole of the afternoon. Detectives Ward and Bailey, and Acting- j Detective Quirke also gave evidence. For the defence George Pearoe and James j Arnold stated that the name "F. Williams," and not "Tim Troy," was on the bag. The accused, in evidence, stated that he had no board at Riccarton. To Mr Cresswell—-Wit-ness had been convicted of cheating at cards. For about half" an hour or an hour on August 14th he had plied his calling at Riccarton in the vicinity of the totalisator. He had been moving about aU the time. His Worship, in inflicting a fine of £5 and costs, said that there was nothing clearer than that Troy and Williams had been plying their calling at two places. He did not think it likely that the four witnesses for the prosecution had combined to give false evidence. James McMillan, William Pobar, John Jones, and William Robinson -pleaded "Guilty" of having betted at Ri<-*ca_*to_* on August 14th, and were each fined £5 and .cats. Hugh Granger (Mr Harvey) pleaded "Not guilty" to having betted at Riocartor-i on August 14fh. Detective Fahey stated that aocusedl was a bookmaker, and had a blackboard on two legs with a support at tbe back. Accused had remained in one place the whole of the day. To Mr H_rvey— The board was about two feet by three feet, and at no time had witness seen it hanging on the shoulders of a boy. Detectives Ward, Bailey and Quirke gave similar evidence. Hugh Granger stated that the board he used (produced) had no legs. It had straps on the back, whereby it hung from the shoulders of a boy. The boy had moved about with witness. The Magistrate saw no difference in this -ase as compared with the ot-ners. Th© sole question was whether the business had been localised, and it was clear to him that the spot had been localised by the board. If the accused had started on a tour of the racecourse the case would have been different. The board called the attention of those wishing'to bet, who knew by the board that they could bet and could come J back, if they won, and get their money. ] He inflicted a fine of £5 and costs. I