ALLEGED "WELSHING."

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1029, 19 January 1911, Page 5

ALLEGED "WELSHING."

A BOOKMAKER AND HIS CLIENTS. CHARGE OF THEFT. THE CHAMPION PLATE AFFAIR. ' In the Supreme Court yesterday morn* ins, Mr. Justice Chapman heard the appeal of Victor H'Duff, a bookmaker, against the decision of Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., 1 given in the . Magistrate's Court at Wellington, in the case of Police v. M'Duff, v.-hereby the appellant was sentenced to one month's imprisonment on each- of faro charges of theft in connection with an alleged "welshing" incident at Trenjham racecourse. The information alleged* that Victor M'Duff on October 22, IS}lO, at Trenthami racecourse, committed theft of <£!, the property of James .Marshall. Defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge, but after the case bad been heard, the magis-. trate convicted him and imposed a sen- . tence of a mouth's imprisonment. At the. timo of the hearing the following facts ' were alleged:—Defendant was a licensed bookmaker at the Trentham races on October 22,' and ho obtained his license from the Wellington ltacing Club, under the assuihed name of Bob Watson. His racing bag bore the name of "Vic. M'Duff, Auckland, - " but over that name, had been placed a leather flap bearing tho name "Bob Watson, Tatts." Defendant laid even money against Danube in the Champion Plate, while other bookmakers were laying shorter odds on the same horse. ' James Marshall, Joseph M'Donaugh and - James North each backed Danube in the • amount of ,£l, and hanued the money to defendant, and many other persons back- ~ ed Danube with defendant because de- • fendant was laying a better price than other bookmakers, and the majority ofdefendanfs customers on this race, soma 60 in number, backed Danube. Defendant's betting-sheet was placed in evi-. dence at the hearing, but the record of - bets on tho Champion Plate was missing. ' / After the betting had closed, and before the raco was run, defendant divested, himself of some of the money in his bag by; handing it to another person. Danube won, and M'Duff then informed the holders of winning tickets that he would only be able to pay them their money . back; Though defendant refunded some of the investors' money he refused to refund tho' £1 demanded by James Marshall, and ho also' took tickets from certain investors and tore them up without paying. While defendant was paying out, some silver | was knocked out of his baud, and some. money, partly gold, was taken from hi 3 ' | pocket, but defendant did not complain to tho police that he had been robbed. De- . t.fendant was taken in charge by the I police and escorted to the stewards' room , [ as his safety appeared to be in danger, and while in that room he paid «£2 10s. to certain investors, and the sum of £1 Bs. was found in his possession, and owing to want of funds he was unable to satisfy the demands of investors, whose tickets entitled them to a refund of «£5 10s., the tickets of James Marshall and James North being among those presented. In the stewards' room - defendant said he could pay, by borrowing from a friend named Dowling, but took no steps to communicate with Dowling. No evidence was called or given on behalf of defendant. Tho magistrate held that although the. money handed to M'Duff by Marshall and; North- could noC be by civil; process, yet it was capable of being stolen, .and if M'Duff had carried, on business in • the ordinary manner lie: would have had sufficient funds to repay money to-.the investors on Danube. Defendant, by permitting- -another person to take mosey from him, was guilty of a fraudulent act, and that his acts generally amounted to theft, and defendant was accordingly convictcd. . *

Mr. A. L. Herdman appeared for the appellant, and Mr. H. H. Ostler for tho .Crown.

■Jlr: Herdman, after reviewing the facts, mado, reference to Mr. Justice Edwards's decision in the case of limas. v. Barnes, at Warigariui, and to the . Buckmaster cftffwCounsel contended before there "could" bo a conviction against STDufi it must be proved that the owner of the money parted with the possession but did } not iiitend 'to part with the property in ,■ ; tho money. : Also'there miist be'eyidenco that, at the time, the defendant received the money,, there was intention on his part to steal. But there was no evidence of this. In fact, defendant was. willing to pay at the time, and would have done so but for being interfered with. Had_ the investors' money- been .returned, M'Duf? could not have been proceeded against. "His Honour: Oh, yes.' If theft was .proved to bo his intention, when he took: the money, the mere paying back of, stolen money would not clear him of the charge. . Mr. Herdman submitted that in such a case it would be practically impossible 11 to prove such intention. The question of odds was not proof, for it was not an uncommon thing "for different bookmakers to be laying different. odds on the same horse. It depended on the business in" his book, and there was such, a thing as competition among bookmakers. .' In replv, Mr. Ostler said that the magistrate had found that appellant had formed an intention to steal. It did not matter when, as, according to the NewZealand law, the intention may be formed at any time, but hs submitted that the, magistrate found that M'Duif formed the intention to steal at the time the deposits were made. It was clearly laid down, in the Buckmaster case that the property in the money did not pass until the event was decided. 'The case would 1 have been , unarguable but for the decision in' the , appeal on the ' Wanganui case. ' In that case' Mr. Justice Edwards did not find any evidence of fraudulent intention; whereas in the present case there was such, ■finding. ' . , , At the conclusion of legal argument, his Honour intimated that he would take time to look into the case before giving his decision. \t