CHARGES OF "TOTE" BETTING

Evening Post, Volume LXXII, Issue 66, 15 September 1906, Page 5

CHARGES OF "TOTE" BETTING

BOOKMAKER FINED. "Tote betting" was the subject of three informations preferred at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. Riddell, S.M., against Wm. Scott. The informations set out that on 14th August," 'at Riccarton, the defendant entered into bets with Percy Henry Brierley that if the horses Prospector, Gazeley, and Shrapnel won certain races, sums of money should be paid to Brierley, and the amounts would be dependent upon the working of the totiqisator. His Worship reserved his decision until this morning, when he imposed a fine of ' £10 pn the Srsfc information, and £2 10s on each of tho other two, with the total costs of £1 ss. In the course of his remarks, which at times were spoken in an undertone, and almost inaudible from the press desk, his Worship stated that the evidence consisted of statements by the clerk of the defendant, and also by the person with whom tho bet was made. It was also corroborated in some features • by an account showing that on certain races Brierley was credited with certain amounts. It was stated that he wished to back the horses to a certain extent, and that iv the cose of the horses Prospector, Gazeley, and Shrapnel winning the amounts credited to him were to be determined by the working of the totalisator. The account, he said, showed that totalisator odda had been used to determine the amount of money due to him. Thero was also a credit on the whole account in favour of Brierley to a sum considerably over £100, and for that amount a cheque was drawn by the defendant in the name of Scott and Martindale. It was argued that the evidence given was that of accomplices, and must be received with great caution, and that in cases of this kind it was not usual to convict on the evidence of accomplices alone. His Worchip, however, considered that there was sufficient corroboration in the cheque and account handed into court, and held that the defendant was liable, and must ba convicted. Mr. Wilford, for the defendant, said if there was a bookmaker, in New Zea-1-ind who was looked upon as a decent, straightforward man in his own mode of life — counsel was putting his oc-' cupation on one ride becauss there were those rightly or wrongly who considered the occupation of a bookmaker as disgraceful — it was Scott. Whatever his calling might be, his private life and character were beyond reproach. It was the first time he had ever been before tho court for an ' offence of this kind. Ho was not one of those men who, apart from their calling, polluted the community, and counsel asked his Worship to ■ deal with him on the first information only. Chief Detective M'Grath said the defendant, as counsel etated, had not; been previously convicted. But it was quite plain he got his livinsr by an unlawful means — ■ betting at "tote odds." The detective added that -he had never before had a complaint that the defendant failed to pay his gambling debts. His Worship said these ofences against the statute were looked upon as serious ones. The penalty was fixed by the statute, and bookmakers were presumed to know it. He would treat the three offences as having been committed on the same day, and fine _ the defendant £10 on the first charge, 'as stated, and £2 103 on each of the other two.