BOOKMAKER FINED

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 146, 17 December 1913, Page 7

BOOKMAKER FINED

BETTING ON LICENSED PREMISES FINES TOTAL £50. The hearing of the charges against Samuel Isaacs, a bookmaker, which were commenced on Friday of last week, was concluded at the Magistrate's Court today, before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M. /The charges against the defendant were thofl« of betting on the licensed premises of the Grand Hotel, and of "publishing a certain document" (a betting card) relating to betting on horses. Giving evidence on his own behalf, the defendant strenuously denied that he had either made a bet with, or handed a betting card to, Constable Revel, "who laid the information. He admitted that b« was a bookmaker, and that he had been warned by the proprietors of several hotels to keep off their premises for the reason that he was a bookmaker. Isaacs declined to answer a question by Inspector Hendrey as to previous convictions for betting. His counsel, Mr. E. J. Fitzgibbon, said that he had advised Isaacs to take this course in view of section 2 of the Gaming Act, and on the ground that in admitting jprior convictions he would ba incriminating himself and addingto his possible punishment, the _ section providing for increased penalties and imprisonment for convictions subsequent to the first. The question of previous convictions, he held, should have been , set out in the information. His Worship upheld the position taken up by counsel, remarking to Inspector Hendrey that it was merely a question of the degree of penalty. In giving his decision, the Magistrate referred to defendant's admission that he ffas a bookmaker, and had^ been warned not to frequent certain liceused premises. It was a question as to the evidence of the constables and that given by the defendant, and he was not prepared to accept the defendant's doniftl. The evidence was hot Very conclusive, but was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the defendant, who would be convicted. On the charge of betting on licensed premises defendant was fined £30, with 7» costs, and On the other charge the minimum penalty (£2O) was imposed. An application for time to' pay was made by defendant's counsel, who suggested 31sfc January. The' Magistrate declined to allow the defendant any more than three days in which to find the amount of his fin*.