STREET BETTING.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXI, Issue 54, 6 March 1911, Page 8

STREET BETTING.

: EX-BOOKttAKEf&CONVICTED. PEK&LTIhOF-m, , To-dayf-the^case against Henry Jackuon, said^to be»a waterside worker, who t was charged with being i& Willis-street. fin 23rd Februaryi for tie purpose of bfittdng-waa resumed. at. the Magistrate's, Court, before Mr. W./ G. Riddell, S'.M.,'Evidence for the prosecution had been, ■taken on Friday 'last, and the case wasadjourned in orderjthat counsel for the* defence could lead" rebutting evidence • ftrtth regard to certain statements to t .which he had objected, but which were iidmitted by the Magistrate as relevant. s /Chief-Detective Broberg prosecuted, and.1 l&r. T. M. Wilford appeared for defendant, who had previously; denied the allegation. \, DEFENDANT'S STORY. . ' l Jackson,, .defendant, denied h'jCy- ■ ang made any- bet -in Willis-street on the23rd February. It' was true, witness used the words "Who potted me?" to [Detective Hammond. He told the- detec-; 4-ive he had been in the library all the. and wanted to . know why ihe had been picked out. Before being , arrested, witness was waiting for a man •named Cooper, with whom he had an appointment for 2.30. With none of the men with whom he spoke that afternoon, however, did he make a bet. '-.To Chief -Detective Broberg: Witness remembered that Detectives Hammond and Kemp hsd both sworn that he (witcess) had said, on arriving at the Police •Station, that- "'he didn't .intend to take 'at on to-day." Witness did not make ithrt statement. ' "Chief-Detective Broberg : Will you ewear straight out in face of the evidence of these two detectves that you did not make that statement? — No, I T>'on't ewear to it. I absolutely have no recollection. •-Are -you a bookmaker?. — I used to be. I'V/hen did you cease to be ,8, Dookmaker? — Witness made some inaudible remark, also a reference to the new Act. ;_Were you engaged in street-betting tip to the time the Act came into force? — -I decline to answer that question. Where did you get these race-cards? (holding up several cards). They were found in your book. — I had them given to me. • TWho gave them ,to you? — A friend of mine. "Who is the friend? — I am not going to, fay who gave them to me. ' His Worship (to witness) : ,You must answer. that question. The Cbief Detective : Who gave you those race-cards? — No Teply. You shouldn't require to hesitate about it. — I cannot answer it. Well, you have got to answer it. iWho gave you those race-cards? — A "bookmaker. Who was that bookmaker? — I could not tell you. The Chief Detective : All right, I will leave it at that. Archibald Cooper, labourer, in the service of the Harbour Board, said he had an appointment with Jackson for , between 3 and 4 "p.m. in . Willis-street on the 23rd February. Witness turned up about-4 p-m. ; he had to give defendant £2, and it was about 4 p.m. before he could get the money. Further questions elicited the fact that wJmess met Jackson by chance on (Wednesday evening; that he had owed Jackson £2 for some months, and it was not till Wednesday night that Jackson reminded, him of the debt. Mr. Wiifoxd remarked upon the fact that though, the prosecutor had defendant's "btoks" on the table he never crass-exemined Jackson to prove that the latter had any bet. INFEKENXDE FROM EVIDENCE. • The magistrate said that under section 2 of the Gaming Act Amendment Act, 1910, any person who loiters about a ' {public sfaceet for purposes of betting is (liable, on» summary conviction^ to a fine not less than £20 and not exceeding '£100 for a first offence. So far as derfendara was concerned, the charge •brought against him was the first under this section. Defendant's counsel had ■jplaoed everything before the court that - could, be said in Jackson's, favour, and ihad dealt with the whole matter very jfully. He had pointed out that the new measure was very drastic. Without travelling the major part of the evidence, fjb.e whole matter could be reduced to a very narrow point. It seemed ito the magistrate that defendant had made one admission, which pointed very strongly to his betting. The only ques(tdon was whether he was in Willis-street tfor the purpose of betting. There was corroborative evidence of betting, , namely, the possession, of cards for races on that day, at Woodville and Dunedin. Defendant had £Z> 3s in silver on him ■w'heh' arrested — an unusual amount, and & suspicious circumstance. He had been seen by the detectives to go into hotels Hi Willis-street. It seemed to his Worship that 'the fact that defendant — who was known as a bookmaker — had been speaking to sevetal persons in other streets, and then taking them into various hotels in Willis-street, was evidence from which the court could- draw an ■inference that defendant was betting in Willis-street. The magistrate proposed to draw that , inference. If he were wrong, then defendant had a right of appeal. Defendant was convicted, and fined £25. Security for appeal was fixed m tha sum of £10 10s, together with payment of tho fine.