STREET BETTING.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 974, 15 November 1910, Page 6

STREET BETTING.

TEB-ENCE CHAGAN , FINED.

At the Magistrate's Court yesterday be« fore'Mr; W...G. Eiddell, SJJ., Terence O'Hagan was charged (1)-with using Willis Street.for the purpose of' betting oa September 23 last, and (2) : with doing an act for the purpose of aiding William Ham in making a bet m Wiffis.Street- on the same day. Chief Detective Broberf* appeared to prosecute. and Mr. T. M. Wilford to defend. . . It - will be. remembered that O'Hagaa ■reas..;called.as a witness for the prosecntion against one' William Ham in con-, section with a case of alleged street betting when the prosecution collapsed <m account of the attitude of the witness, who,.is very deaf. .In refeijence ■to the : charges against O'Hagan yesterday Chief Detective Broberg stated that one was laid under the by-law and the other wae laid under Section 24, Sub-section 2 of the Gaming Act. . .' '•; Detective Hammond gave erotence as to accused calling at the detective office in company with a man. named Irwin, and signing a statement which resulted in an information being laid against Wm. Ham. ' O'Hagan appeared to be very deaf' at that time, but seemed to thoroughly understand the statement which he had made.: ■ ..: ■ . -. ".- Detective Kemp corroborated tins evidence. '•'■• : -. .'-. •'■''.' - -■■..■' Mr. 'WiHord intimated 1 that Iris e&fct would admit the first offence. The men was suffering from a natural -affliction., and, on the occasion when' he was a wife mess in the prosecntion , against Ham, he was not aware of the nature of the questions which he had answered until lie saw' the newspaper reports. He was now going to say that the statement which he made to Detective Hammond was correct, and that his answers to questions in Court were incorrect." In addition to being very deaf, accused was - suffering from shock, the result of a fall I over' a cliff; and he had also, had' sunstroke. His sister had told counsel that he was mentally weak. Accused was placed in the box fo give evidence, and there was again some difficulty in-administering the oath. .'His examination was a slow operation, and his answers to some of the questions indicated that he had not heard or did not understand what had .been asked. In answer to one question, "Where did you see Ham?" witness stated that ,he;did not hear and, on the question being repeated, he said TNo, it was not raining." The magistrate eventually', intimated that he did not think it would be worth while going-on. Accused had, however, during the course of his evidence.admitted making a, bet, and was convicted on the first charge and fined £3, with costs. 75., in default ,li days' imprisonment. The second charge was withdrawn. '.''■■