GAMING ACT.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17061, 4 February 1921, Page 4

GAMING ACT.

CHARGE AGAINST W. V. WHITTA. WITNESSES CLAIM PRIVILEGE OF SILENCE. At. the Court yesterday morning, before Mr S. E. McCarthy. S.M., hearing of evidence was resumed in the charge against William Y ivian Whitta of having carried on the business of bookmaker in Christehurch. The charge was laid under the Gaming Act of. 1920. The defendant, who had elected to ho tried by iurv. was represented by Mr C. S. Thomas. Mr A. T. Donnelly appeared for the police. Edwin Horrobin, officer in the Christchurch branch of tho' Bank of Australasia, wave evidence as to cheques for £4O 10s and I'S being drawn by Moss Ballin. WITNESS'S PRIVILEGES. Moss Ballin, dentist, was called by the prosecution. Mr M. J. Gresson said that this witness with others had asked him to advise them regarding their responsibility in answering questions which night incriminate them, as the Gaming Act of 1920 made every person who made a bet with a bookmaker Jiablo to a tine of £IOO. Mr Gresson contended that 110 witness could be compelled to answer cjucstions which might incriminate him. . Mr Donnelly: I allowed my friend to make a few preliminary remarks, but as he is not a party in this litigation counsel for witnesses has no status to address the Court, The sole litigation in this ease is information against defendant. The witness himself must make the objections if he desires to, and the matter will bo entirely for his Worship* to decide. Mr Gresson said he would like to be heard on the question of his right to address the Court. Mr Thomas, counsel for -defendant, obviously hdd no right to take any action on behalf of witnesses, but the witnesses had the right to object to answer questions, and surelv they could make those objections through counsel. How could the ordinary witness know when ho was incriminating himself? This was a matter for skilled The only other way was for his Worship to take on his own shoulders the responsibility of advising witneses whether they "should answer certain questions or not. The Magistrate: Tho proper course is for the witnesses themselves to make the objections. Mr Gresson- I accept your Worship's ruling with respect, and all I can say is (tinning to the witness Ballin) : Take the oath and refuse to answer any questions which you think might incriminate you. AN INVOLVED WITNESS. The examination of Ballin by the Crown Prosecutor was then proceeded 1 with. , , Mr Donnelly: Are these your cheques drawn on the Bank of Australasia? Witness: Yes. To whom did you pay those cheques? —To defendant Whitta. What were those cheques paid for?— I am afraid I might incriminate myself. Mr Donnelly: You can answer if you wish to. Were they for bets? Witness: They were not for bets m New Zealand. Mr Gresson: The- witness has stated his objection, and yet my friend goes on to ask the .question. I put the witness under the protection of the Court. ■Witness stated, that the bets were in'connexion with the V.R.C. Meeting in Melbourne. He gave Whitta two cheques, one for £4O 10s and the other for £B. They were to cover bets on Vespucci for the Australian • Derby, Erasmus for the Victorian Derby, and Eurythmic for the Melbourne Cup. There was also a double on Erasmus and Eurythmic. - * Witness, in further evidence, said that he kWv that Whitta went to Australia every year. Hb had asked Whitta if he would do him a favour, as he wanted to hack certain horses over there, and Whitta' said: "I will be only too pleased to do that for you when I am in Australia." Mr Donnelly: Have you ever made a) bet with Whitta for races in New Zealand P ' . Witness: Can I claim the privilege? His Worship: Yes, you can. Witness declined to answer. _ Mr Donnelly: 1 am at a terrible disadvantage. I have not seen this witness before, and I think I am the only one who hasn't. (Laughter.) Witness said he remembered the police interviewing him the other day about the cheques. Since the police had seen him, Mr Whitta had spoken to him. T 1 M. What did he say to you? I submit I am entitled to ask that Mr Thomas objected. _ The Magistrate said that Mr Donnelly was entitled to ask the question. Mr Gresson said he was in an invidious position, and he would ask hia Worship to carefully scrutinise every question asked the witness. Mr. Donnelly: What I am asking you is: Did Whitta mention the cheques? — No, I mentioned them. I asked him to como to the office, and I told him I hfid. got a "bluey" (a subpoena). Whitta, said that was bad luck, and he explained tho law to witness, and 1 said that lr the latter was asked to give evidence which might incriminate him he need not answer the questions. Whitta- advised him to get professional assistance. Did the conversation finish then? The witness did not answer. Did ho offer to supply you with professional assistance? —-\o. Mr Donnelly: You have known Mr Whitta for a number of years. What did you know him as? —In the old days as & bookmaker. And what do you know him now as? —As a capitalist. (Laughter.) When did you last know him as a bookmaker? —I will not answer that question. Mr Thomas raised an objection to the whole of the evidence on the ground that it was referrable to a transaction in Australia. To Mr Donnelly: Whitta was to mako nothing out of the Australian transactions unless he got longer odds on tho double. OTHER WITNESSES. William Arnold Virtue (Bank of NewZealand), John Morton Hopkins (National Bank), and Percy Walter Jackson (Commercial Bank of Australasia) gave evidence as to certain cheques drawn through their banks. Harold G. Cogan said that he cashed a cheque at the West End tobacco shop on November 9th. A. Y. Whitta, defendant's son cashed it, and ho received the full cash for it. The cheque had no connexion with any betting transaction. Donald M. Mcßae, hank clerk, gave evidence that a cheque had been drawn by Jerrard for- £6 payable to Whitta.. There were also two cheques drawn by witness payable to A< V. Whitta. He received the full amount in cash for them from A. V. Whitta at the tobacco shop. John Henry C. Thacker said that on November Bth he drew a cheque for £B. 'Die cheque was partly for purchases •which he made at the West End tobacco shop, and the balance was for cash, of which he received £7 odd. He had cashed_ cheques there before. William Wales, tobacconist, Lyttelton, was called. He admitted having drawn two cheques payable to T. Dunn. Mr Donnelly: Who is T. Dunn ? Witness: I Tefuse to say, on the ground that it might incriminate meWhat were tho amounts of tho cheques for?—l refuse to answer. , TV itness said that the police, had interviewed him at Lyttelton regarding some cheques to Whitta, but he refused to make any statement at the time. After the police saw him he did L not communicate with anyone in Christ-

church about the matter. Later on, ho came to Cliristchurch to see defendant. He could not exactly say what the conversation was, but there was reference made to the subpoena. He saw defendant at the West. End tobacconist shop. Referring to the subpoena, Whitta- said: ■'Have you got one of them? Several have got them.'' Witness said he. would go and see- a lawyer, to learn if he could obtain privilege. Charles W. employed at the High street Chambers, said "he had not. seen Whitta in Mr Bott's rooms since the latter took them over. The two Hendersons who had occupied the building were complete strangers to one another. John. Henry Bott- said he was lessee of the Elite Hill iard Saloon in Worcester strc-t. Ho had leased the billiard room from defendant in July, 1910. He had rooms Nos. 15 and 36 at High street Chambers. The telephone number was .M-K, and telephone o4SB, belonging to Mr Henderson was ako in his room. Henderson was a secretary. Ho was cnJy in Christehurch for a little while, and he went away again. Witness took over Henderson's telephone, because his. -T> was not a good one. and, since then lie had paid for two telephones Mr Donnelly : Why do you keep two telephones?—l often have to ring up somebody. What- do you want to rinjr up about? —When I am up there I do my accounts. Mr Gresson: Your Worship, may I draw your attention to the trend of the evidence. The suggestion is boing made that the. telephone lias something to do with Whitta, and this witness has not been warned. The .Magistrate said there was nothing incriminatory in an answer to the last question. Mr Donnelly: Why do you keep the two telephones?— Because one is out of order, and if I lost the other I might not be able to get another. One telephone is enough for my requirements. 'Have you ever complained to the post office about the delect in tho telephone? —1 did so once, but it was no U6e. Mr Thomas said that Mr Donnelly was exceeding the limits of an examination in chief. He was conducting something more in the nature of a crossexamination. "1 would ask your Worship to keep your eye on him." Mr -Doniitiilv: Surely I am not as bad as that-? x Witness, proceeding, said that he kept in his rooms A. V. Whitta's tobacconist shop books, as well as W. V. Whitta's accounts. The latter imported a good deal of material from Australia. The defendant was interested in Tatters-all's billiard room, which ho had leased to Mr Ahiield, and he also owned the Central Billiard Saloon, which was leased to Mr Spencer. The lessees paid for their own telephones. Witness sometimes paid deposits into Whitta's No. 2 account. Large sums of money went through that account. No. 1 account was overdrawn. Mr Donnelly: Where did you get those moneys and postal notes, etc., from ?—I decline to say where I got them from. In respect of what business in No. 2 account have you made lodgments?— I refuse to answer. Witness said that the tobacconist business was in no way connected with tho No. 2 account, or with any business carried on by W. V. Whitta. I thought A. V. W T hitta had passed on cheques cashed at the tobacconist shop, and that explained how they had got into defendant's No. 2 account. To Mr Thomas: The defendant Whitta was a man of large commercial and farming interests. Mr Donnelly: What was Whitta's business from 1915 to 1919? _ . Mr Gresson ,to the question being ar ed? as the Act said that a man was liable if he was directly or indirectly connected with a boolcmaking business. Mr McCarthy held that as long as the question only incriminated defendant, and not the witness, it could be put. Mr Donnelly: What lines of business is Whitta engaged_ in?—He owns billiard soloon properties, and houses, and he deals in sections. ; And for what part of his business did postal notes and money order telegrams come for?—l have' already refused to answer that question. Detective John McLeod, stationed at Gisbome, said that on May 19th, 1920, he had been handed by a Chinese market gardener, a double chart, together with a form of instructions, and a card of addresses instructing that telegrams were to be sent to the following _ addresses : ' 'R. Spencer, Elite Billiard Room, Christehurch:" "C. Cook, Central Billiard Room." Witness on May 24th sent a telegram to C. Cook: ' Can quote 4-14 first quality, delivered Auckland," and .he received a reply (produced) addressed to Louib Yoiik, which was handed to him unopened. Mr Thomas said he had nothing _to say, except to make a formal objection to" the evidence in the following order of objections:— (a) All evidence as to the facts to do with A. V. Whitta's shop; (b) all evidence concerning the billiard saloons; (c) all evidence concerning post office boxes; (d) all evidence concerning T. Dunn; (e) all evidence concerning the various telephones other than tho one No. 246, leased by defendant; (f) all evidence as to facts which were alleged to have taken place before August 23tli, (when the Act came into force); (iz) all evidence to do with facts subsequent to November 12th, 1920 (the date on which accused is charged with having been a bookmaker). Whitta pleaded not guilty, ana wasi committed to the Supreme Court fori trial, bail being allowed in his own recognisance of £SOO.