BOOKMAKING.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19545, 15 February 1929, Page 9

BOOKMAKING.

SUPREME COURT CHARGE. TAYLOR FOUND GUILTY. Herbert George Taylor appeared in the Supreme Court yesterday, before his Honour, Mr Justice Adams, to answer a charge that on January 19th, at Christchurch, he carried on the business or occupation of a bookmaker. Accused, who was represented by Mr C. S. Thomas, entered a plea of not guilty- Mr A. T. Donnelly prosecuted for the Crown. Mr Donnelly, opening the cat.e for the Crown, said that the accused was charged under the Gaming Act, 1920, which prohibits any person from being a bookmaker by occupation. It nas a notorious fact that there was still a great amount of bookmakmg being carried on. Mr Donnelly said that accused evidently spent his time knocking about hotels, making bets with anyone whom he met. Two young constables met the accused in the bar oj the City Hotel, and they contracted many 5s and 10s bets over a period of several days. When arrested, the accused had many rough notes of bets and the general paraphernalia of the "kerbside" bookmaker, as well as several documents from what was apparently, the Bookmakers'_ Association. Accused was evidently not in a big way. If the evidence of the constables was accepted, together with the_ evidence of the documents found on hi in, then the case was proved beyond doubt. Some people would say that it was no 'worse to bet with a bookmaker than on the totalisator, but if the oookmakers or their Association wanted alterations in the law. they had legitimate ways of doing it. If the r.ocusea man was found flagrantly carrying on the illegal business, it would be unfair to rely on the jury flat against the facts of the evidence, ana out of a sympathy which would be misplaced, acquitting him. Constables' Evidence. Constable E. Chibnell, stationed at Christchurch, said that he met the accused in the City Hotel on January 4th. He was in the back bar of the hotel, when the accused came in, and the barman said to the accused, "Look out, there's a 'dixer' in front. t know if he is after you or not. Accused left the bar, but returned later, and witness gave him a card bearing the name of a horse, and asking "'J 1 to put 5s on it. Accused took the card. Later he put 5s each on other hoises, one of them running second. A man came in while one of these bets was being made, and asked accused what was his limit. Witness collected a dividend, and later, witness and accused had an argument as to whether a bet was on a horse's first t r second start. Accused pulled out a paper m support of his argument, and w.iness saw records of horses' names and betsAccused paid a barmaid £3 10s cn account of a bet, the woman expressing surprise at the horse having run. Accused gave 'witness and other acoeptance cards. _ Witness isked him what his occupation was. and the accused said, "gust this," and pointed to the acceptance cards. Witness asiied if he had any other occupation, the accused replying: "None. It is a pretty hard game." On the 18th, witness was again in the bar when he left a bet with a barmaid, and the following dav he had two further bets. To Mr Thomas: He knew m the Lower Court that accused was charged with bookmaking, but he forgot to say anything about asking him questions as to his occupation. Constable V. Holland said that on January 19th, in the private bar of the City Hotel,, he saw a man make some mark on a race-card and hand it to Taylor." Witness also had: a bet with Taylor that day. In the afternoon witness saw Taylor make several trips to the telephone,, returning to speak to some men at the bar, who were holding race-cards in their hands. He saw several other men make bets with the accused. The Accused Searched. Detective-Sergeant J. B. Young said that on January 23rd he went to the City Hotel,, where he arrested the accused. Accused was searched, and £52 2s lid was found ; on him, as well as bookmakers' acceptance , cards fpr the Wellington Simmer Meeting and the Ashhurst Meeting, with the placings of the horses, the . times .of starting, and the dividends.' .He found, a. list issued ;by~the Dominion .Sportsmen's Association to bookmakers, containing acceptances for the Forbury Park. Trots and the Wellington and Ashhurst Meetings, with the starting times of races and other information.' He also found a number of papers with horses' names and amounts, marked on them, as well as several betting slips. To Mr Thomas: There were charges pending" against accused, in the Lower Court, of betting at totalisator odds. Casa for Defence. Mr Thomas submitted that the Crown had not proven, beyond all doubt, that accused was carrying on the business of a bookmaker. The definition of a bookmaker was that a bookmaker was a person who acted or carried on the business of a bookmaker as a part of 9. livelihood. A man could have a casual bet in the street with a friend, and he would break no law. The law prevented bets being made at totalisator odds, but even if a man made a bet at totalisator odds he was still not a 1 bookmaker. The bet at totalisator odds was the "half-way house" between the harmless bet and bookmaking. A man who laid bets at odds dependent on the totalisator was not yet a bookmaker, and the Crown must go further than that, and satisfy the jury that the amount of betting done was sufficient to constitute a business. He drew attention to the fact that one of the constables had forgotten a most important piece of evidence in the Lower Court, and, in fact, had left out the one piece of evidence necessary to •prove the charge —that the accused's occupation was that of bookmaker. Mr Thomas said that there were charges of laying totalisator odds against the accused in respect to the same bets in which the present case involved him. The Crown, he said, were taking a double-barrelled gun with them, and therefore there must have been some doubts in their minds as to their chances of succeeding in the charge. He asked the jury to dismiss this first barrel, this "perhapser." TTjg Honour's Address. # ffig Honour, in his address to the jury, pointed out that the evidence brought by the Crown was quite uncontradicted. He was also bound to cor- j reet an impression given by Mr Thomas. There was nothing to prevent the different charges of bookmaking and laying bets at totalisator odds being brought in respect to the same bets. 1 One of ' the most disastrous things that could oeeor in any community would be for a jury to disregard the law, which was framed. for the protection of - all citizens. • • The jury retired at 3.20 p.m. and returned twenty minutes later, asking for farther direction as to the amendments to the Gaming Act. They retired again and returned at 5 pan. with a verdict of guilty. The prisoner was remanded to Saturday for sentence, permission being given for him to remain oat of custody.