THE GAMING ACT. ALLEGED STREET BETTING.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVII, Issue 115, 17 May 1909, Page 8

THE GAMING ACT. ALLEGED STREET BETTING.

I JUDGMENT RESERVED. Three bookmakers — Wm. Henry Eager, James Ham, and Wm. Ham — appeared before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., to-day, charged with being in Willis-street, on J the 29th April for the purpose of betting. There was also an information against William Ham charging him with betting in the same thoroughfare on the previous day. Chief Detective Broberg conducted the prosecution, and Mr. J. J. M'Grath appeared for defendant Eager. B'or such breaches of thei betting Act offenders are liable for the first offence to a fine of not less than £20, and not exceeding £100, and for a second or subsequent offence to a period of imprisonment not exceeding three months. On the application of one of the defendants, the case against James and William Ham was adjourned till 21st May, the applicant to pay costs of such, adjournment. In the case against Eager, defendant pleaded not guilty. Detective Cassells stated ihat on the morning of 29th April he took up a, position in a bnilding at a window overlooking and opposite the Empire Hotel. About 12.10 he saw defendant take what appeared to be money from a man. Later he saw a man accost defendant, who took out a book and made a note in it. At 2 o'clock on the same day witness saw a man named Wilson, in front of the Empire Hotel, .hand Eager a race- card. This man look ed after defendant's billiard-room in Manners-street. Subsequently witness saw Eager and two other men (specified) talking in Willis-street, and the three examined a race-card. One of them was a follower of horses. On other occasions <on the same afternoon witness saw Eager i'm consultation with various men, when defendant took out his book, retired into ■•she porch of the hotel, and made notes. C'enerally a race-card was the centre of a bservatioii. Defendant was about the ht ite\ from midday till about 3.20. In reply to a question by Chief-Detec-tii.ie Broberg, witness said the place in whuch he saw defendant was one frequented by bookmakers and punters. 'l!o Mr. M'Grath : He was twenty to tw<?nty-fiye yards away from defendant, anql considered that the card he saw in defUindant's hand was a race-card. The first occasion was the only time on which defe aidant received anything from the varilaus people who spoke to him. If defendant swore that he received the moiHsy for a perfectly legitimate object, witness could not contest it. If it were swori' that defendant was collecting money for the ■purpose of defraying the legal itxpenses of a jockey charged with a crini'inal offence, witness could not deny 1 1. Concerning the men witness knew a s speaking to defendant, it was because he knew them so well that he did not- call them. To Mr. Broberg : Witness said that it was not unusual for men when betting to have tlhe bets simply booked without paying onrei' any mon?y. James Walden, private detective, stated he knew the defendant. Witness dpscribed him- as a licensed bookmaker, and gave instances of Eager's betting transaction rs. Further, in reply to Mr. M'Grath, witness v said that Eager was licensed only as a bookmaker's clerk. In addressing the Bench, Mr. M'Grath maintained that as the offence was of a highly pena 1 nature, the police should prove the charge without leaving any doubt on the matter. Defendant 'would swear that he was in Willis-street on the date in question, for the legitimate collecting of subscriptions. His client had acted as bookmaker's clerk. If a conviction we«e entered in the present case it would Ibe unsafe for many people to wait about in Willis-street on race days. If his Worship thought there was a case to defend he would put defendant in the box to swear that he was no bookmaker, anid had made no bet in Willis-street oci the datefalleged. His ' Worship considered that a prima facie case had been made out. Defendant, in the box, stated his occupation as proprietor of a billiard-room in Manners-street. He never had any difficulty in. obtaining his license, which he held for two and a ' half years. He was in Willis-stueet on the day mentioned, but had not laid a bet. He was collecting subscriptions to defend a jockey who had got into some trouble. At the same time he noted a few of the amounts in the pocket-book (produced). Witness certainly had a racecard, consulting it. Since the new Gaining Act, he had acted as clerk to a bookmaker. He had never been spoken to by the police for loitering. On the 29th April, witness had not made a book of any kind. To Mr. Broberg : Sergeant Lyons did not speak to witness in Willis-street on the day of the alleged breach. Witness would not swear that he had not received any race-cards from the City Printing Works during the year. On the 29th hg received perhaps half-a-dozen cards from people he could not now place. Here counsel objected to the question as irrelevant. His Worship considered the cross-ex-amination was relevant, as a test of credit. Continuing, witness admitted being in. partnership with another man. He also admitted having held the bag for a man one day at the Miramar pony races. Concerning several betting notes in the pocket-book, defendant sAid that they were probably made 'and entered before the time he and his partner opened at Trentham. To Mr. M'Grath : Regarding the entries in the book for the 29th April, defendant stated thai they referred to business transactions. His Worship said that the evidence ■would have to be carefully weighed. H© would reserve nis decision.