A PROHIBITED BUSINESS

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 182, 30 April 1941, Page 9

A PROHIBITED BUSINESS

Appeal, By Bookmaker Against Sentence

DISMISSAL BY CHIEF JUSTICE

“All I’m concerned with is that the law says that bookmaking is a prohibited business,” said the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) in the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday, when dismissing an, appeal by Charles Joseph Williams against a sentence of six month’s imprisonment imposed on him by Mr. Al M. Goulding, S.M., in the Magistrates’ Court, Lower Hutt, on January 30 for carrying on the business of booiiinaking. Mr. R. Hardie Boys, who appeared for prisoner, said it was not disputed that in ordinary circumstances such a sentence would have been justified, but in the particular circumstances the sentence had been particularly severe, as on eight previous occasions prisoner had been heavily fined. On the salutary sentence of a £2OO fine being Imposed on him in August, 1939. Williams had given up the, business of bookmaking, and from that time till Christmas last he did no bookmaking, but had become what was known as a punter. . . , “I have always said that it is not creditable to the administration of justice that a prohibited business should be carried on ” the Chief Justice said. “What are fines but a licence fee to carry on an illegal business?” Mr. Boys: When this man gave up business as a bookmaker he started as a punter. His Honour: Was he able to get on the course? Mr. Boys: No; for the four days of the Christchurch meeting. he operated cutside the course, and, in his wife’s name, invested £l4BO on the totalizator, and in two days at the trotting meeting invested £B2O In wagers. •His Honour: It matters not what the law may be; I have to administer it. It-is contrary to the well-being of the State that people should ignore the 1& Mr Boys said that being compelled to remain cutside the course had brought Williams into contact with outcasts, with whom he took bets. He had been sentenced as if he had carried on in the same way' as. when he had engaged a -large staff. His Honour: There is only one way of stopping bookmaking and that is by imprisonment. So long as they are only fined they regard it merely as a licence fee for carrying on the business. . „ Prisoner's Evidence.

Giving evidence on his own behalf, Williams said that he was 41 years of age, and was a married man with two children. Since being fined £2OO, he had disposed of his business as a bookmaker. He produced an account with the Canterbury Jockey Club showing that he had made investments extending over four days amounting to about £l5OO. He also produced an account with the Metropolitan Trotting Club showing investments made on the totalizator on November 12 and 14 last. Over the months from August to December he had invested about £250 on each race day. The betting he did at Trentham was with people who were prohibited from going on the course Cross-examined 'by Mr. W. R. Birks, who appeared for the Crown, Williams said he gave up his bookmaking business at Palmerston North at the end of July, 1940. He admitted that’he was accepting bets on every race on each of the three days at Trentham. His average betting would be about £l5 on each race. His Honour: How much did you get for your business at Palmerston North? Williams: £2OOO. In cash?—“Yes.” You have been fined heavily time and again. Why did you not give up bookmaking long before? —“Because I had a wife and family to support.” “It is perfectly plain,” said the Chief Justice, “that this Court should not and cannot interfere with the sentence. The magistrate could not in this case, with due regard for the administration of justice, do other than sentence thik man to imprisonment. He has 'been deliberately flouting the law fpr years. The appeal will be dismissed, with seven guineas costs.”