UNDER THE GAMING ACT

Evening Post, Volume CI, Issue 103, 2 May 1921, Page 8

UNDER THE GAMING ACT

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

RULING OF COURT OF APPEAL.

'A""$ood deal of public interest attaches ■ to tfte decision of the Court >of Ap-■peal—-their Honours Mr. Justice Sim : (acting-Chief Justice), Mr. Justice Hoskmg, Mr. Justice Stringer, and Sir John Salmond—regarding an appeal made by William Vivian Whitta, who "■was convicted upon charges of book- , '-making by a Christchurch jury [in FebTuary, against the admission of certain •evidence called by the Crown. At the ■trial, Mr. Justice Herdman noted the objections, and upon them stated a case for the Appeal Court, the passing of sentence being deferred pending the deJcisifln (of the higher Court. ;;, "rtie evidence which was objected to ■was as follows :—(1) That which tended to prove that in carrying on the business for occupation of a bookmaker, the fStivjties of the accused extended to Australia; (2) that which tended to prove 'that'"A. V. Whitta, son of the accused, .caxried on the business or occupation of .a, bookmaker at premises situated in Cathedral-square, Christchurch, on be.'hslf of the ?.ccused, who was interested! therein; (3) ttiat of all facts which tended to prove that the accused carried on "the i business or occupation of a book;maker prior to 28th August, 1920. The charges wereJin relation to the following 'dates, on which it was alleged the acicußed carried on the business of a bookmaker :—lst September, 1920, and 12th rand 26th November, 1920,. and it: also was charged that from , Ist September, ,;1920, to 26th November, 1920, he carried on such business. | ; The judgment stated that the Court -•was of tlie opinion that evidence of acts !~by the 'accused -were' not admissible to ;'pirove that the accused, by reason of his '■character or habits, was likely to have the offence; such evidence, ■' .'.'however, was relevant if it was relevant ■Jin any other manner to the issue of the '■accused's guilt. The Court held that it «'raight.-be.so relevant.in.many, ways, and cases in support of.that theory. ♦ The judgment added: " The- question ""for determination is whether, in a proseI'cjuHiion for [the carrying on of business as a -bookmaker on or between specified dates, is admissible that the occused Scarried on such a business before those jdates. In dealing .with, this- question, it '■is immaterial jwhether.the prior dates "are before or, after the passing of the 3Act which made the business of a book---maker,illegal.( „...'.. . We are of opinion that the evidence was admissible." ;*;; ThWwas, in addition, a further •>gT6und> of' relevance.' ' "The case for' the -was that a bookmalring busi,'jiess," ostensibly carried on by the son ,*of the accused,, was in reality the busi:ness of*the accused, and that the son iiwas merely his agent. The prosecution 'iVas entitled to prove.that."agency,, by ;;reFerenoe, not merely." to transactions Jwithin the period specified within the in'^Jictmentj but also transactions before '^ke commencement of_ that period. . .',. ;>: Evidence of systematic betting by way rjof business prior to Ist September was 'aelevaarl as throwing light on the nature ~pt bets made during the specified period, •and as showing that they 'were not ?]casnal. That the accused made bets by jway a£ his buainasa before Ist; Septemfoet, 1920, -was no evidence that he made ibeto after that day, but it was evidence that beta; proved to have been made by lim after that day'were made by him .ins the way of his -business. It "tad bean contended'on behalf of the Accused, "that even' if evid«nc»' was] ad-. jnissible that the accused carried on) busitiess as a.bookmaker after such Jrasinese became illegal, tie same prinicdpie did not apply to evidence of each Jbnßtness before it became* illegal. It had. been contended, that was to say, that Itbe conduct of the accused in carrying 'im business of a bookmaker while hi ?vas entitled], to do so was no ground for any inference-that-he continued to do So after bookmakihg became a criminal joffance. Even on th© charitable assumption that the business carried on by the accused before1 the Act of 1920 was car-, iied cm in a strictly lawful manner, without violation of the very stringent 'limitations, already placed on business of that .class by •■, the - Graining Act, •1908, and!, -its amendments, tiha • Court could! not accept the distinction! so suggested. It would be an odd rule if evidence of previous unlawful conduct rwas admissible, but that evidence of preivious lawful conduct/ was inadmissible. The circumstances that the business became unlawful in August, 1920. might reduce the probative value of evidence as to the carrying on of such business be- : ifore that date, but the Court did not ! jthink that'it made such evidence inadmissible. • ■ The conviction was affirmed. During the hearing of the appeal Mr. M. J. Gresson arid Mr. C. S. Thomas appeared for the appellant, and the Soli-.citor-General (Mr. W. O. MacGregor) and Mr. A. T. Donnelly for the Crown.