"TWO STARTS, TWO WINS!"

Evening Post, Volume CI, Issue 66, 18 March 1921, Page 8

"TWO STARTS, TWO WINS!"

CHARGES AGAINST PATERSON

PINE OF £100 IMPOSED,

The disagreement of two juries at the Supreme Court recently when James Paterson was charged with carrying on the business of a bookmaker did not clear him from further Court proceedings, and to-day at the Magistrate's Court, before Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., Paterson was charged with 'using the Star Private Hotel as a common gam-ing-house, and with trespassing on the Hutt Park racecourse on the 23rd January last, he being a prohibited person under section 33 of the Gaming Act. Chief-Detective Ward prosecuted, and Mr. H. O'Leary appeared on behalf of Paterson.

At the outset, Chief-Detective Ward suggested that the same evidence* be used as that given on the charge which went to the Supreme Court, and to this Mr. O'Leary consented, pointing out that on that evidence two juries had disagreed. The Chief-Detective received an assurance from Mr. Hunt that he was well acquainted with the evidence. It was stated further that the betting records found in the possession of Paterson showed that between the 26th October, 1920, and the Bth December, 1920, 1337 bets had been made. "I admit," said the Chief-Detective, "that the average bet was about 5g." The proceeding!* were taken under section 4 of the Act of 1908.

Regarding the charge of trespassing, Mt. O'Leary asked that the case be proved. Evidence was called to the effect that Paterson was seen by Detective Nuttall on the Hutt Park racecourse on the 23rd January, and was requested to leave, because he was a bookmaker. Pateraon did so, and stated that he did not think he was committing an offence, as he was not a convicted bookmaker. The detective did not see him betting. Mr. O'Leary contended that, regard* ing the second charge, Paterson acted bona fide, being not then a convicted bookmaker. He left the course as soon as he wae told that his presence was not wanted." There was no suggestion that he' was there as a bookmaker, and Mr. O'Laary suggested that a nominal penalty would meet the case., Concerndng the other charge, Paterson had been before the Supreme. Court on the same evidence, and two juries had disagreedl. During that greater charge the man had gone through a good deal, particularly in waiting for four hours in the cells under the Supreme Court on two occasions while the jury was deliberating. Paterson had a legitimate business, and he carried it on wiell. He had found another means of making a little money, other than that fronishis business; for the comfort of his family. Although the number of bete he had made since the new Act cam* into force were large, yet the quality of them was not large, showing that he was carrying on only in a, small way. He was a man of good character, conducted himself well, had a good business, and had not previously been convicted.

"He has had two starts and two wins," said the Magistrate, "and he cannot complain this time." For such an offence it was stated that he was liable to imprisonment for three months. The maximum penalty, £100, was imposed, with oosts, on tho charge of using the hotel as a common gaming house, and for trespassing on ' the Hutt Park Racecourse Paterson was fined. £2 and costs.

"You referred to the other two starts," remarked Mr. O'Leary. "They were on the same facts."

"Yes; I know they did not convince the jury, 1 replied Mr. Hunt, "but they do convince me." The Magistrate addied that this was the last fine he was going to impose on bookmakers.