MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 117, 11 February 1920, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

BETTING CHARGES

PROSECUTIONS FAIL

Tho chargo against Phillip Byrne- of having miule a bet with an unknown indivitlunl on Deccinbor 29 Inst was concluded before Mr. li Pago. S.M., nt the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Chief-De-tective AV.ird prosecuted, and' Mr,. M. Myers appeared for the defendant.

The police alleged that the defendant's cheque 'books were of a nature which (showed that he was engaged :n bookmaking, both here and hi Sydney.

Tho defence was that Byrne had retired from the bookmaking business in September last, and had since then merely been a "punter." The Court granted the request of tho prosecution to recnll Byrne to ask him whether some of tho amounts recorded in the cheque book discovered in Lis possession were given on account of "laying odds" transactions.

Byrne swore that none of the amounts entered in the chorine book wcro for money won from Irin on a double. .He denied having made any bets with a man named Jfoald.

Thomas O'Connell described a bet which Byrne was alleged to have made. It was in regard to the length of a bunch of grap°s, details of which were produced bv Bnrtolo Pusso. He heard someone ask the defendant how ho got on that dav.

Chief-Detective Ward: What deduction did you mako from that question? Witness: I understood that ho had Been punting."

Witness further stated that he did riot know whether Byrne had been puntin? or not.

To Mr. Myers: Witness did not think a bet as alleged by tho police had been recorded, otherwise ho would have heard it.

Frederick Hilton, licensee of (he jNntiona.l Hotel, raid that a .£5 bet was r.iade in regard to the sizo of a bunch of grapes of which TCusso had boasted. The "fiver" ivas put up, and subsequently withdrawn.

Counsel for the defendant submitted that a more or le«s jocular tot had been made, and Detective Holmes had mistaken the nature of the transaction.

Til discussing the 'nformation, theMagistrate s.aid that there was a doubt about the. matter, and the benefit of such doubt must bo given to defendant.

A DEFENDANT cmrPTiATNS OF ILLTREATMENT. '

Six charges of loitering to make bets in Willis Street during the New Year period were preferred against Thomas C.irrig. Chicf-Deteetivo Ward prosecuted and Mr. M. Myers defended.

Polico evidence was given. to the effect that the defendant had been seen on divers dates carrying on betting transactions in Willis Street.

In evidence, the defendant said that he was a returned soldier, and had been nwardod the Meritorious Service Modal. He was arrested on the evening cf Jnnunrv 22, and was told that he was "in" for the night. He was placed in a coll with a man who was practically in "the horrors." When he complained the watchman made an obscene remark. Mr. livers: It is nothing short of a degradation of the administration of justice, and it is not the only ono. Continuing, witness said that he had known a man named Driscoll for about twenty-seven years, but he bad never loitered on Driscoll's nremises for the purpose of betting. He admitted bavin? had racecards in his possesison, and bavins conversed with people as to the chances of certain horses winning. Ho had never laid a bet, but had made bets. His association with Driscoll and M'Ewen were only friendly. Counsel contended that the foundation of tlie charce was Carrig's old acquaintance -with Driscoll, who had been convicted of keeping a common gaminghouse.- Defendant was fond of sport, and his ceneral meeting-place was at Stewart Dawson's comer. Because lie discussed racing with his friends he was chareed with loitering for the purpose of bottine:. .-. Carrig could have been found withoiit any trouble by the police. Yet. he was arrested on a warrant, issued bv a Justice of the Peace, and not bv a Magistrate, at an hour when he could not be bailed out; and he was thrown into a cell with a drunken man.

Chief-Detective Ward said that Detective Holmes, who had arrested .Carrie;, had also "done his bit," and if counsel had anv complaint-to make, he should call for an inquiry. Mr. Myers: It 1 makes one's blood boil tn think that the administration of justice should be dragged in the mud like this!

Chief-Defective Ward: "It is n matter for inouirv. There are policemen and policemen, just as there are lawyers and lnwvers." It was as a result "of observations made by the policemen who had been watching the corner for some time that the allegation was made against the defendant, explained Mr. Ward. The Magistrate said that it was evident, that the defendant bad loitered round the premises which had been classed as a common gaming-house, but there was no evidence that he had loitered to make bets. Defendant's action was capnble of an honest explanation, and there was nothing to justify a finding that Cnrng was present on the occasions in ouestion for the purpose of. making bets. The case would bo dismissed.

Tn reeard to counsel's allegations about the treatment of his olipnt, 'tho Magistrate remarked Hint if counsel considered his client MRRrieved lie should report the matter, ami ask for an inquiry. The charecs against .Tohn I,'aidlaiv Wallimr were further adjourned. civiiTbtjsiness CLAIM FOK RETURN OF DEPOSIT.

A. claim for the return of ,£25 deposit Paid in connection wilh the purchnse of a property, was heard by Mr. W. G. Riddell. S.M.. the pnrties being Ernest James Kccl'.s, agent (plaintiff), and AY'illiam Hcnrv Benrmnn and his wife, settlers (defendants).

The statement of the claim alleged that plaintiff entered into an agreement with defendants to purchase a six-roomed house in Walter Street, and in the treaty for the sale (plaintiff alleged) defendants represented that the property was subject to a first mortgage for .MOO at G per cent., witli four years to run, and a paragraph to this effect was included in the agreement. Plnintiff further alleged that the representation regarding the mortgage was made with the intention of inducing plaintiff to purchase the property, but it subsequently transpired that the mortgage matured on February 1. 1915. and that the said representation was fnlse. In consequence of this plnintiff demanded the return of the deposit mnnev.

On l>chalf of the defendants it was submitted that they were ignorant of tho procedure regarding tho snle of property, nnd when Mrs. Bearman saw the plaintiff mid discussed the matter she was under the impression that the nim-tragc had four years to run. She had been informed so by her ngent. There wis no case of misrepresentation to nnswer. It was furthr contended thnt the Court had no jurisdiction for the 7-escission of a contract, and that plaintiff, who was an experienced land agent, should have examined the title to the property before agreeing to 'buy. • In nonsuiting plaintiff, His Worship commented on the fact that plaintiff had failed to examine the title of the pro-' pcrly to ascertain the (rue position. lie had accepted the statement of Mrs. Bearman, who had been given to understand that the properly had a mortgage which had four years to run. Tho Court had no power to rescind n contract—it was a matter for the Supreme Court. Mr. T). Tl. Richmond appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. T. Neave for defendants. A PAINTER'S CLAIM. Frederick Gapes nnd George Gapes, painters, paperhangers. and glaziers, proceeded against Edward Young, builder, claiming .IS .Is., the balance of an account rendered to defendant for paintin<_' done by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs undertook to do fiomo painting for defendant and rendered an account for ,Cl 7 te. Defendant paid Xl 2 Is., and denied liability for the balance, contending that plaintiffs had agreed to do the work on a rough estimate of .£lO. Plaintiffs deputed this, and slated that the price of JII7 'Is. was reasonable for the work done. After heuriw. the evidence, tho Magic-'

trnte (Mr. W. G. Biddell. S.M.) decided I that pome reduction should be made in the amount. The claim would bo reduced bv 305., and judgment would 1)0 for plaintiff for £3 135., with costs Xi 19s. Mr. W. Perry appeared for plaintiffs and Mr. 0. C. Mazengnrb for defendant. UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for plainliff bv default was given by Mr. W. G. Piddcll, S.M., in the , following undefended cases:—Win. M'CimI lev v. Te Hen Hen Tukino. .EC 1%. "d.. ' mid costs .iil 13s. fid.: W. .T. Gamlin and • Ron v. W. Rice, .012 12,?., mid cost': £\ ! I2s. Cd.: C. P.. T,nnirdon v. D. Parnell. ■ JK) costs 10s.; Waiter Cole v. Thomas • Hicks,' £i 25., cosls Jus.; United Society of Boilermakers v. John O'Brien. Us., » costs 55.: City Corporation v. Selina 1 Cnrter, i'S 10?., costs as.: Browne and • Yeats v. H. L. Peard, .£lO Us. 6d„ costs i .SI 10s. Gd. i BREACH OF A BY-LAW. Onlv one bv-law cow was dealt with . yesterday, and this was the case of Ed- i ' ward Sullivan, who was fined .CI. and ! costs Vs. 1,.- Mr. E. Page, S.M.. for jump- ■ ' in? off a. 'moving tramcar. His action '. caused him to collide with another man who wrs about to hoard the tram, and he fell to the road, narrowly escaping , being i-un over 'by a motor-car. j