AN ALLEGED BOOKMAKER.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17295, 5 November 1921, Page 13

AN ALLEGED BOOKMAKER.

TRIAL OF THOMAS LONG,

■TORY DISAGKEEvr\v TRIAL ORDERED. • . I Thomas Long, ior "horn Mr F. D. I Sargent, with him Mr V . J. Cracrofb Wilson, appeared, pleaded not guilty at tho Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr Justice Adams, to an indictment chirg-ir-r him that en August 6th, 1021, at C"iristehureh ; ho did carry on the bua-ne--s or occupation of a bookmaker. Air \ : r Donnelly prosecuted for the j Crown Mr Sargent challenged five of the jurymen called, and Mr Donnelly ordered "seven to stand aside. ! The Jury. \ The following jury was empanelled : Robert Shaw, butcher 31 Uabham road, Svdenham; l'wd. Artnur Pagp, ; salesman. 70 Slater street, Richmond; William oJohn Armstrong, carpenter, ol ] Fairfield avenue, Addington; Alex. Hamilton Forbes, farmer, Hillsborough, Ernest. Maurice Staoe, carpenter, I<3o Fisher street. Svdenham; Thomas Airey, labourer. Islington: Robert Pugh, caretaker, 45 Edgewaro. road, bt. Alhan-; Charles Herbert bhave, painter, Si Pcicock street; Herbert bhelton, tallv clerk, Islington; Albert Andrew AUsop, storeman, St. Albans; "Walter Mills brick maker, 100 Chaiica street, Linwood; and Fred. Holland, clerk, ol Derby street, St. Albans. The Ethics of Gambling. Mr Donnellv, after briefly describing the changes in the law as affecting bookmakers, and after explaining the main previsions of tho 1920 Act, detailed the facts alleged in.the present na<-e It was true, he said, that accused was not currying on business m a laff'o wav, and had other employment.'but it"was alleged that ho earned on the business of a bookmaker, though in a small way; and the reason why accused was being tried in tho Supremo Court was that under tho law ho couldi elect, and liad elected, to be- tried in. that Court. Opinions might differ as to the ethics of gambling, as to whether wa3 right or wrong, and as to whether it was right that the fcotalisator should bo allowed to it would be tho next day at Riccarfcon — and the law should prevent people like the accused carrying on the business of bookmakers. ' Those were questions of policy, for politicians to decide. What tho jury was concerned with i was tho law, and it said that if a man did .what accused was alleged to have done, he committed a breach of the law; and it was their duty to take a- fair and proper view of t'ho evidence, and not to concern themselves with tho question of the ethics of gambling. Ho called evidence. Evidence by Police Constables. Constable L. J. Brazier stated that ho knew tho accused and saw him at 2.30 p-m. oh August 4th in the bar of the Cafe de Paris Hotel. On accused's arrival he pulled a printed double chart out of his pocket and showed it to the men' in the bar. Witness saw three select doubles and hand over money to accused, who entered in a book the horses and t'ho amount. He aeemed to bo well known to tho people in the bar,, who addressed him as "Long Tom." Witness went tip und asked for a double. Long handed him the chart, and witness took 5s on ono double and a similar amount on another double. Witness gave his name as Brazier. On August Cth, witness; in company with Constable Best, again saw accused in the Cafe de Paris bar. Constable Best took a double, and several otJher inca took doubles-' Long gave witness a receipt for tho doubles taken on the previous occasion: Tho receipt (produced) i 'was" written' in tho presence: of witness and Constable Best, who.■■also'received a receipt for the'bet he made. '"Witness and Constable-Best saw accused'on the ' Addington trotting course on 'August 10th, and spoke toliirn and betted with him. In making these bets, witness acted under instructions from Superintendent Hendrey. To Mr Sargent: Witness had neyer seea Long prior to August 4th. Witness was staying at the time at the Cafe' do Paris Hotel as a boarder. Before August 4th he had not made any bets, but had seen double charts before, sometimes in the hands of his own friends." He did riot attempt 'to arrest Long. . Mr Donnelly said that tho Act did not provide for obtaining a warrant; the offender had to be brought" up on sumWitness, continuing to Mr Sargent, stated that he was having his third ' drink ' (.port wine) when he spoke to Long.. Afterwards ho had a pert wino with Long. On both days-xhe 'had no other duties except the detection of bookmakers. ? '. Constnhlo E M. Best stated that' on, August 6£h last he went at 4 p.m- with the previous witness to the Cafe \de Paris Hotel; accused came in- shortly after. Brazier introduced them, spying that "hip mate" (witness) wanted to lay. some doubles. A double chart was produced by Long arid a bet was made, accused noting the bet in a little red book, and handing witness a receipt. He saw accused on tho course at the trotting ' meeting on August 10th; it was in-the. outsido enclosure, and they asked for a' .double and duly mado a bet. Accused did not give a receipt or make a note, but said that it would bo all nght, Witness was acting under the instructions of the Superintendent of Police when ho made these bets. To Mr- Sargent': No steps were taken by witness to remove accused from tho racecourse. m Detective-Sergeant T. Gibson stated that on August 10th he was at the trotting meeting at Addington and sawConstables Brazier and Best with accused. Witness produced the race cards of races during Grand "National Week, and stated that all the horses in respect of which doubles were given had run or had accepted. To Mr Sargent: Recognised bookmakers had a printed double chart. Therecognised double at last Grand National was the Steeplechase and the Hurdles or the Winter Cup; it wa3 not the. Jumpers' Flat and Steeplechase. I/ong was not recognised as one of tho regular bookmakers: ho worked, in the season, at freezing works. He could not say whether the double chart ilhat Long had was ono issued by a regular bookmakerThis was tho case for the prosecution. Mr Sargent, in opening for the defence, said that he would rely chiefly on section o. He called evidence. Accused's Occupations. Philip le Brun, clerk, Thomas Borthwick and Sons, stated that he kept the wages record. Long was employed by the firm as a slaughterman, and had. worked from January li'Uh, 1821, to Juno 14th, 1921. He received in wages £ 107 lis 2d: the season was practically over in June. Long had worked before for tho firm. Charles Edward Baldwin, for four years secretary of the Shearers' Union, • stated that he had known accused for about ten years: Long was a married man, and resided at Belfast. Quite a number of men followed shearing and slaughtering. Witness knew that accused followed both occupations. Several applications had been received by witness from stations owners for accused's services. To Mr Donnelly: He had never met accused iu connexion with betting or doublo charts; indeed; it came as a shock to him to learn that he was accused of doing so. Ecrtrsiii Priestly, Imperial Paint Spraying Company, stated that accused had worked for ms firm from. July to.

September: during National week they stopped for ten davs. To Mr Donnelly: He did not knowthat accused was connected with betting, and had never seen him with a double chart. "When accused told him that he had got a summons for betting, it came as a shock to him. Private Betting. Mr Sargent, addressing the jury, agreed with the Crown Prosecutor's' statement that they were not to consider whether the* law was good or had; it was-on the Statute Book, and declared that the business of a bookmaker was illegal. Soemg that the law was a great interference with the liberty of the subject, counsel submitted that the jury must examine the evidence with great strictness, and sive accused the benefit of any doubts. Gambling was not aimed at by la6tyears Act, because the totalisator was earned on, and, furthermore, there was nothing to nrevent private gentlemen betting on'tho Cup. and betting on Rouen, or any other horse; or betting on a double.' Tho question in this case was: What is the interpretation of section o, which gave an avenue of escape to ordinary pooplo like counsel, and the members of the jury who" thev made a hot. If evidence such as had* been given that day led to a conviction, then counsel ventured to say that the country could be engaged foi twelve months hearing such charges, because at the present time there wero very few people who did not bet on a race and had double charts in their posession. Tho evidence that had been given was that which could bo given aeainst any private bettor betting with his private friends. As to the meaning of "business or occupation'' in section 5, counsel asked his Honour to direct them that it meant a person's ordinarybusiness or occupation. The Crown must i.how a course, of business, and that, in the present case, bookmaking was accused's regular business. Ju this connexion counsel referred to the Whitta case, wliero, lia said, there was evidence of the very closest kind of a telephone system, a billiard ealoon systee. and a post ofGco box in connexion with an established business. Counsel said that accused did not look like a prosperous bookmaker, but looked like the ordinary working man that, he was. Counsel referred to the writinfe on the back of one of the receipts, which was: "Given to me by Burnett," etc. The witness, Braaier, had stated that ho wrote that, and counsel suggested that Brazier might easily have got mixed, especially as he had several port wines, and was not used to drink. A Man's Businesses. Mr Donnelly said the facts and the law in tho case wero plain. Business meant anything a man did for the purpose of making money out of it. There was a great distinction between bets established against accused and private betting. A bet made with a. friend in a house or in tho street did not constitute carrying on the business of a bookmaker. The evidence in the present case was that accused was making bets with anyone on any horse or any combination of horses. A man's business was not necessarily a man's only business and accused's presence in the bar was in itself an offer to do business and an intimation that he was there to do business. Tho evidence showed that accused made a number of bets and dearly made them in the way of business: it was not a very large ftiisiness, but accused may have been graduating to become one of the larger operators. His Honour's Direction. His Honour said that counsel for accused had presented tho case in probably the only way in which it could be presented—as a question of law. The facts were not' disputed. Counsel for accused had asked him to direct that bookmaking must ho the ordinary occupation of accused, and that the •Crown must show a. course of business and practice. "I do not propose to direct you in that way," his Honour said, "becauso that ia not my view of the law. A person may carry on a business, or two businesses,, or half a dozen businesses, and the question of ■carrying on a business docsn-lt dependon the; length-of timo that the person has been engaged in that business. After referring to the evidence of the constables and to the evidence regarding tho slaughtering and other work done by accused, his Honour said that it was submitted bv counsel for accused that the constable" offered to make the "bet'; but the odds were offered by accused, and one did not need to lrnow much about betting to know that that was offering the bet. His Honour added that section 5 had really no reference to tho present case because it was proved that accused was prepared to take and make beta-on soveral event*, had made bets with a number of people, had double charts in his possession, • and entered the bets in a book, and received money. "1 have to direct as is mv duty," his Honour added, that that constitutes carrying on business as a bookmaker and unless you are prepared to disregard all tho sworn evidence of the witnesses; I need hardly tell what is your duty in the case. The inrv retired at 3.11 p.m. At 7.43 p.m. the jury was brought in and the foreman, in reply to the Registrar's question, stated that the jury could not agree. His Honour: I may assume that you. are quite satisfied that there is no possibility of agreement? • The Foreman: No. your Honour. His Honour: I am sorry you hare had all that trouble with a* negative result. I have to thank you for your services , , The inry was then discharged. Mr Doiinellv applied for a new trial durino- the week commencing November ■l4lh/ - , ■,.*;.. His Honour granted the application. Mr Sareent applied for bail. As prisoner's surety was not present bis Honour, after matter hod .been considered by Mr Donnelly, said that he would accept prisoner s own recognisances to appear on Monday at 10 am to enter into a proper surety. Prisoner would have to report, to the police at 7 p.m. on Saturday and buna The Court roso till 10 a.m. on Monday. DTJNEDIN MAN ACQTJITTED. (VSXSt ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) DUNEDIN, November 4. j "William Forrester, charged at the j criminal sittings of tho Supreme.Court with laving a double wager, -was acquitted after a brief retirement by the jury.