BOOKMAKING ALLEGED

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 125, 19 February 1921, Page 6

BOOKMAKING ALLEGED

A CHRISTCHURCH CASE CHARGE AGAINST WILLIAM WHITTA By Telegraph—Press Association. Christchurch, Fe>bruarv 18. William Vivian TVhitta appeared before Air. Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court to-day on four charges of bookmaking. Accused pleaded not guilty and was represented by Air. S. Solomon, K.C., with him Air. C. S. Thomas. The prosecution was conducted by- Mr. A. T. Donnelly. in outlining the case Air. Donnelly said it was extraordinary in that it did not prove that TA hitta himself made bets, but it would prove that he was the proprietor and owner of a carefully and skilfully devised method of bookmaking, which rested largely- for its success on great public utilities of the Dominion—the postal, telegraphic, and telephonic services. This business was organised on the lines of a largo commercial concern. Air. Solomon said that a serious question arose as to the admissibility- of certain evidence of facts which took place before the coming into operation of the ■Ac*, and he thought that in fairness to me Crown, as well as accused, it might be well to ask the jury to retire. His Honour said that he would discuss the matter with counsel in his room. Addressing the jury- he added that there were certain facts which the Crown proposed to prove, but it would first be necessary to decide whether they were admissible. When the Court resumed. Air. Donnellyproceeded with his address. He detailed the evidence which it was proposed to call, and remarked that considering the banking accounts, 'billiard rooms, and accused’s connection with his son’s shop in Cathedral Square the conclusion was that accused was carrying on a big bookmaking business. If lie was not, by- what business could accused be so circumstanced?

John Stephen Barrett, solicitor, said that ho remembered a civil case, Dr. O’Brien v. TVhitta, on September 13, 1919. He was counsel for O’Brien. Witness asked accused then “What is your real occupation ?” and he replied, “I am a bookmaker.” In answer to a 'further question.- lie said that his income derived from bookmaking was from -£3OOO to .£4OOO a year. Evidence as to happenings in the tobacconist shop kept by accused’s son and in billiard saloons alleged lobe owned byaccused was given by various witnesses, also as to the ownership of telephones and postal boxes. Air. Solomon, addressing the jury-, said that the police had used all means at their disposal, even going into the privacy of accused’s home, and yet not one direct statement could be placed before the Court that he was engaged in bookmaking. His Honour will sum up to-morrow.