ALLEGED BETTING ESTABLISHMENT.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 15613, 10 June 1916, Page 12

ALLEGED BETTING ESTABLISHMENT.

A LOCAL PROSECUTION*

JUDGMENT RESERVED

Before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M.. in tlio Magistrate's Court yesterday, Robert Michael Cox, Archibald Hunt, and James Philip Walsh, for each of whom Mr J. A. Cassidy appeared, were charged with keeping a common gaming house during the past six months, in rooms situated in the Royal Exchange Buildings. The evidence called by Chief Detectivo Herbert, who conducted the case for the police, showed that, acting on information received, Detective Carney, of Wellington, wrote to defendant Cox. under the assumed name of Henry S. Jennings, saving that as the defendant firm offered better prices, lie would like to make a. bet through liim on behalf of a small privato syndicate. On receipt of a reply from Cox enclosing a betting chart and assorted sporting matter, Detective Carney sent a money order telegram for £i to Cox. with the message "£l. Crawford and Zetes at price quoted." and received tho reply "Booked 40 to 1." Cox rented n Post Office box, through which he received all his correspondence, and all telegrams were called for and received over the counter. Oi May 25th Detectives Ward and Gibsoh, of Christchurch, raided the room occupied by defendants, on n search •warrant.. whero_ they found the three defendants with two other men, Merfield and Brewer. On the entrance of the two deteetives, the receivers of tho two telephones in the. room, which were ringing, were removed, and by •pa?h was found programmes of various impending race meeting*, with memoranda recording bets. Cash books, detailing similar transactions, including the bet made by tho oseudo "Henry Jennings," "double" books, a large number of telegrams, and other records relative to betting transactions were also found. Sums of money, ranging from £5 18s 6d to £29 5s were discovered on the persons of the occupants of tho room. Other evidence was called by the prosecution. from men who it was alleged had made bets with defendants, but each refused to answer the questions of the Chief Detective, on the ground that they themselves might be incriminated. After some legal argument, the Magistrate upheld their contention.

For the defence, Mr Cassidv submitted that thorp was 110 evidence whatever against Hunt on this charge. Tho Magistrate agreed, but said that Hunt would bo called upon to explain his presence in the room. In regard to tho other two defendants, Mr Cassidv submitted that the Court; could not infer any evidenco against them on account of the refusal by four of the witnesses to answer questions, and no proof had been given to substantiate the charge that tho rooms had been kept for gaming or betting purposes. In tie first place, betting was not illegal except in certain circumstances, chiefly those involving the laying of totalisator odds. The section of the Act under which the information was laid necessitated that to establish the fact that premises were being occupied j for betting purposes, it must be proved that betting transactions wero negotiated there cither in person or by post, telegraph or telephone, and no evidence had been given in support of this. The detectives had frankly said that the room was not frequented by people in any way, letters and telegrams had been collected at the Post Office, and there was no evidence to show that the telephones had been used for bet- ! ting purposes. The room was simply used as an office in which defendants conducted their clerical work. It had been laid down that the business of betting per se was legal, and in carrying out their business defendants had not contravened tho law.

His Worship remarked that ho had his own idea on tho subject, and would givo a written judgment on Friday next.

The case against Sydney John Merfield, charged with assisting in the management of the and vagainst Richard Brewer, for having boon found on the premises, was alsoi adjourned till Friday next.