CHARGES OF "TOTE" BETTING

Evening Post, Volume LXXII, Issue 65, 14 September 1906, Page 5

CHARGES OF "TOTE" BETTING

BOOKMAKER BEFORE COURT. INTERESTING DISCLOSURES. "Tote betting" was the subject of three informations preferred at the Magistrate's Court to-day, before Mr. Riddell, S.M., against Win- Scott. The informations set oat that on 14th August, at Riccarton, the defendant entered onto' bets with Percy Henry Brierley that if the horses 'Prospector, Gazeky, and Shrapnel won certain races sums of money should be paid to Brierley, and the amounts would be dependent upon the working of the totalizator. • , Chief-Detective M'Grath prosecuted, and Mr. Wilford defended. 1 'Valentine Grelis, c>rk, said he knew defendant Scott, and had been "in his temporary employ as a clerk and agent. Defendant was a bookmaker. Witness •ff^B at Cbristchurch with defendant, on business at the Grand National meeting acting as clerk and agent to him in hid capacity as bookmaker. Had no instructions about odds other than this: that if men paid cash on the course they were, to be paid at tho Tate of £10 on tte first horse and £5 on the second horse. Those were the maximum limits. • They wwe dependent upon totalisator' odds. Had no instructions as to what clients who did -not Day cash were to be- paid. The rule was £7 10s for first Jioree and £2 10s for second horse. Knew plaintiff Brieriey, and saw hira at Bdccarton. His first bet with Brierley was £20 on Kaihu in the Hunters' Hurdles. That horse did not win. The next transaction was £30 on Prospector in .the Trial Hurdles. ' Prospector won ; dividend on totalisator, £2. Had no> instructions as to ddd« in that case. Witness canvassed Brieriey several times and aeked him for a bet.' There was no agreement as to what Brierley should be paid if the horso won. Li absence of a special statement there was an understanding that a man would be" paid totalisator odds with £7 10s and £2 10s limits. Brierley gave witness no cash. Afterwards laid Brlexley £10 on Lucky Star, but Lucky Star was unlucky. Next laid £30 on Shrapnel in the Jumpers' Flat Handicap. 'Shrapnel won and paid £2 0s 6d. Afterwards Brierley bet £20 on Narcissus in the Enfield Steeple. Narcissus lost. "All the betting witness got he did. not write "in his memo. book. Thbught that BTierleybet £20 on Togos and £20 oa Gazeley. " Gazeley won and paid (he thought) £8 2s 6d. Prepared an account of these transactions and gave it to Mr. Scott. It was made out on the basis of totalisator odds. The balance due to Brierley was £120. ?To Mr, Wilford : Had no instruction from' Scott to' inform Brierky that the bets he was making were fixed at any particular limit. If the totalisator odds on Gazeley had been 99 to 1 witness would not have made out an accountgiving that rate to Brierley *s credit. If a horec .paid* £1 15s dividend witness would not have made out a card' sowing Brierley entitled to £7 15s. He bad his instructions (which he had already detailed),and he would have to act on that. If a man put up a pound on a limit horse he would get £7 10s. That was to say, generally; sometimes it happended that they got nothing! Knew that- particular arrangements were made ■with particular clients as to particular limits. Knew of no special arrangement between Scott and Brierley. It was a fact that witness wrote a letter through his solicitor to Mt. Scott asking for £10 a day for eight days for his - services -at xace .meetings. It was a lie. to say that witness asked a man to come in with him at the National meeting to "Jake Scott down." Percy Henry Brierley, a contractor at present residing in Wellington, gave evidence confirmatory of that given by the preceding witness. Witness believed he gave Grelis 19 bets (for Scott) and Scott 6. In the race that Gazeley won witness bet SgO Togos and £20 Gazeley. There ■was an understanding that totalisator odds would be paid, with £7 10a and £2 10s limits. Both Scott and his agentasked witness to give them a turn, and there" .was a understanding that odids would be regulated by the totalisator. Received" a cheque for his winnings from Scott for £120 15s. He asked witness if he wanted the cash and witness said ne did not, as he had too much cash with huh already. Afterwards he heard that payment of the cheque was stooTied. Scott had paid him nothing; not even £70',which he owed witness on account nf "bets he had personally made with witness. Cross-examined : Such a thing as a contract- in connection with betting was unknown. There was no specific contract. There was always the understanding between bookmaker and bettor that; totalisator odds would be paid. Witness accepted totalisator odds, but did not ge tthem. It was true Grelis got witness's ticket, tint that was through & misunderstanding regarding booking of berths. It was untrue that Grelis asked witness to come down to Christchurch and "work a nice thing on Scott." , It ■was about five months since witness had ' done any work. He was living on his own money. J Re-examined : There was no sach thing as straight ont betting on courses where totalisators were worked. Mr. Wilford, for the defence, said it would be admitted that any one who made a bet was not liable fpr tote betting unless the bet was dependent on the working of the totalisator. Tote bettinz was a special offence for the purpose of preventing interference with the Government nlonopoly of th© totalisator. What were tote odds T If a man invested •with a bookmaker on a horse, and that torse paid a dividend of £50. and the man who invested £1 got £7 10a, was he getting totalisator odds? Could* it be said that the parties connected with a wager which, was not controlled by the dividend 'which the totalisatOr worked out could be cither receiving totalisator odds or laying them^ Could it be said that if counsel contracted with a bookmaker to make a wager on Gazeley, and Gazelev paid a £59 dividend iTording to the totnlisaior, the odds could be totalisator odds if the bookmaker only gave £7 ' 10s! Totilisator odds were best calculated by adding the investments on a machine ioßether, deducting a certain percentage for the working of the machine and dividing tho total on the number of inVe>rfirients on the winner; then whatever the quotient was was totalisator odds. What evidence was there of n bet "rtt all? The evidence wa3 of men who, according" to tho latter part of section 4 of the Gaming Acr. wero particeps criminls. ! The passage in question said "Any pereon who makes any contract ov bargain of any kind to pay or receive money upon an event determined or to be 'determined upon tho working of the totalisalor on any liorse race shall be guilty of an offence." Ifo then went on to say that there was no coiroborotive teiftimony which would be deemed nuffieicntJy corroborative — where p-ccompliccs were giving • evidence — upon which his Worsnip could convict. He wished his Worship to say that the evidence was lot conclusive, not complete, and that ihere was an element or doutit, justifying lii dismissing tho information. It was agreed that the evidence given D this case \Vould be deemed to have leen given also in regard to the other incrnvitionsi. fiia WsJcuhip reserved his decwion..