THE GAMING ACT.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14898, 11 February 1914, Page 7

THE GAMING ACT.

A SUSPICIOUS CIRCULAR. I A WELLINGTON CASE. (FREM ASSOCIATION TEI..TORAU.) WELLINGTON, February 10. An interesting betting prosecution engaged the attention of Mr E. W. Burton, S.M., in tho Magistrate's Court to-day, when Henry Martindale was charged that on December 3rd, at Wellington, he published a document which contained a notification on hehalf of Scott and Martindale iis to bettin:; on horse-races to bo run at Auckland on December 2-oth. Chief-Detective Broberg prosecuted, and Mr M. Myers appeared for'tho defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Mr Myers asked that particulars of the alleged publication be given. Chief-Detective Broberg urged that that was a matter for the Court to decide. His point was that the alleged card was sent to a man in the country and received by his wife. His Worship said he. thought Mr Myers was entitled to have the name of the person to whom the' alleged publication was made. After hearing ftirther argument on the point he said he thought it was sufficient to Jay a charge of ''publication," 'and not to indicate the name of any particular person. Superintendent Ellison stated that on December oth last he received a letter by post. It was what was known as a "double chart" on the Auckland Cup and Railway Handicap. It quoted the odds made by persons on that raco. It was a means of giving information as to the betting offered on the "double" of those two races. "This is Greek to mc," remarked his Worship. Witness went on to explain the document and the ■uay in which ''doubles'' are worked. It was a recoirnisc-d style, he added, of giving information on such "doubles." There was no imprint on the chart. The letter also contained an account as of a business transaction, and also a telegram which contained the word ''luroked." He received another letH>r from Levin. . ' ' ■ Chief-Detective Uroberg said he- proposed to call evidence of the receipt of a similar document on a date subsequent to December 3rd. Mr Myers -ibjoeted that evidence ot publication before the date might be admissible, but not evidence ot publication after the date mentioned in the information.

Chief-Detective Broberg urged that he was-'entitled to give evidence to show that the document was sent in the ordinary course of business of a bookmaker. Air Myers contended that it might be evidence to «liow that more man ono copy of the same circular was sent, but it was not evidence to show that other and different circulars Uad been cent.

His Worship agreed with Mr Myers, and ruled tliafc evidence of another publication could not bo given. Cniet-Detective broberg said his object was to show that the circular which was the subject of tiie lniorinatiori was issued by the defendant. The second circular was received at th t latest on the following day. The pro|K)sed evidence was disallowed. Superintendent Ellison added that he knew detcnuant as a bookmaker who had been carrying on business in Wellington as a bookmaker for years. It was a matter of common knowledge and common repute. George Levy, a clerk in the Post and Telegraph Department, produced the authority of. the Postmaster-General to produce' three telegrams (which wereput in as Court exhibits, though not read). Mr Myers submitted that they were not relevant to the charge. Chief-Detective Broberg said ho would call evidence on the subject later on. Arthur William St. John, teller in the Union Bank at Wellington, produced a cheque for £13 2s 6d, dated December 2nd, 1913, drawn by Scott and Martindale in favour of "No.. 1904." The Union Bank received it ftom the Bank, of New South Wales on December Bth, and it was duly honoured. Francis R. Picot, ledger-keeper at the Bank of New South Wales at Wellington, said that on December Bth last the cheque produced was received from D. E. Porter, together with a credit slip, and was forwarded to the Union Bank. Bertie Porter stated that on Diecember l6t last she was at her hus-' band's residence. While there ehe received a telegram addressed to her husband. Th telegram was produced. V Mr Myers submitted that it had no relevancy to the charge. They did not know also what telegram it was an answer to. .Chief-Detective Broberg submitted that he was entitled to show that the defendant was carrying on the business which was canvassed in the document

alleged to have been published. His Worship ruled that the telegram was admissible. • Witness went on to say that she sent a telegram to Scott and Martimlnle (produced) on December 2nd. It read: —"On no account send any communications to Koputaroa in future: Send Hotel Arcadia, Ivevin. D. Porter." Later she received a letter addressed "D. Porter. Hotel Arcadia, Levin," and she sent the contents to Superintendent Ellison. They consisted of a betting list, an account apparently relating to betting, and a cheque for £13 2s 6d. She gave tho cheque to her husband. The credit slip received by the Bank of 2sew South Wales, along with the cheque for £13 2s 6d. was in her husband's writing. The telegram she received on December Ist read: "booked." Tho produced telegram from "D. Porter" to Scott and Martindale, Wellington, "three Lady Louisa today. D. Porter," was in her husband's handwriting. Mr Myers: Did you not know that in signing your husband's name to a telegram you were committing an offence? . Witness said she understood that a wife had the right to uso her husband's name. She sent the telegram without authority from her liusbanl. S>he had no authority from her husband to open the letter. * David Porter, husband of the previous witness, declined to answer a question as to whether he had before December Ist received any betting cards from Scott and Martindale. Witness: I decline to answer, on tho ground that I might incriminate mveelf. His Worship: Is there a section in tl:o Gaming Act which renders him liable for receiving a betting card? Chief-Detective Broberg: No, he might by a tremendous stretch of the law be deemed guilty of taking part in tho publication. It.was for the Court to decido whether the witness was privileged to refuse to answer. Alter argument the Magistrate asked Chief-Detective Broberg if there wa* any intention to proceed against witness as an aider and abettor. Chiei-Detective Broberg said no. \\ ltness said he had already taken independent legal advice, and his solicitor said he could not be compelled to an- ' swer the question. He thought he ought to be allowed to have his solicitor present. Chief-Detective Broberg repeated the question, and witness said that he objected to do so without consulting his solicitor. His Worship: The question must be answered. _ Witness: I decline- to answer without first consulting my solicitor. Chiol-lVoLeciivo Broborg asked that the witness be dealt with. His AVorship remarked that be would have liUeel t; hear witness's counsel on tho subject. Ho would give witness an opportunity to show cause why he should not bo committed. Witness wanted to know who was going to pay the cost of his counsel appearing. His Worship said that was a matter for witness. Hβ would adjourn the Court until 2.15 p.m. to give witness on •onporhui'ty of showing c uiso why j he should not answer. When the Court resumed, Mr A. Gray, X.C.. appeared on behalf of the witness. His Wprship, he said, would aslnxl to infer that there had been a bet made between witness and defendant, and he contended therefore that witness would be in jeopardy if he was asked to give evidence on the subject, as betting on a horse race was prohibited by section 52 of the Gaming Act. The police could not hope to succeed without the witness Porter, and the Bench would be asked to infer that he had been engaged in betting transactions with Soott and Martindale. His Worship said he had to satisfy himself that the pica of privilege was raised "bona fide. It might have been more reasonably pleaded if it had been possible to keep out the telegrams already paid. Chief-IV'teetive Broberg said the question lie put to Ihe witness did not refer to bets; but merely to .whether he had, previous.' 'to December. . Ist, received charts from ■' Srbtt and Martindale, and in- no way was it liable to expose him to nroseciitioM. • His .Worship ruled that, witness must answer the'citiestion. • ' ',Witness, when, the question was put to him,,said : "I decline to answer." ' His Worshir> said it only remained for him +O make an'order of committal, but on Mr Gray's application he enspend* 1 the order to enable counsel to test tbo ruling of the Court. The witness Porteiv at a-later stage decided to -answer"'the. Question,' and adniittod haying received charte -orior to December Ist. but did not know from -wf-om. Tho Magistrate then cancelled order for committM after henri'ii further evidence.. Ho reserved' dfoisjon in the case against Martindale.