BOOKMAKING CHARGES

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 122, 16 February 1921, Page 8

BOOKMAKING CHARGES

NEW JURY TO BE EMPANELLED. There was some comment made in the Supreme Court yesterday relative to the juries that had served in the recent cases against alleged bookmakers. When the case against James Paterson, charged with carrying on business as bookmaker, came before His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman, the Crown Prosecutor (Air. P. S. K. Macassey) asked for nn adjournment until Afonday next, to enable a fresh jury to bo empanelled. Mr. Macassey intimated that he would "stand down” the whole of the jurors who had served in the two previous cases. This, he said, would leave only eighteen jurors on the panel. - “I make this application,” said Mr. Macassey, "as the evidence in the two cases dealt with, against Livingstone and Martindale, was practically unoontradicted. I feel this case should come before a fresh jury. ... I <fo not think I would be doing my duty as Crown Prosecutor if I did not make this application.” "I protest against this course being adopted,” said Mr. H. F. O’Leary, for the defendant Paterson. He urged that Paterson was the first of the alleged bookmakers to be sent for trial, ano n»d been waiting since the beginning of the criminal session. He was ready to go on with the case. It seomed as if Air. Macassey was endeavouring to obtain th® right of unlimited challenge, whereas he was only entitled to six challenges, "What would have happened,” he asked, "if Martindale and Livingstone had' teen found guilty, and I had applied for a new jury for my client? The Crown assumes that because jurors found in one direction yesterday they would find in the same direction to-day. ... I submit that the trial should proceed.” His Honour decided to grant the Crown Prosecutor's application, "In view of what happened on Monday.” Ho considered that the matter should go before a fresh jury panel. The case will be heard on Monday next.