DETECTIVE'S BETS

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 132, 7 June 1930, Page 14

DETECTIVE'S BETS

SALOON-KEEPER CHARGED "KEEPING A GAMING-HOUSE When Herbert Fletcher Tomlinson accepted money from a stranger to put on certain horses. as bets he did not Jcnow that the stranger was a detective.. The result was that Tomlinson appeared in the Magistrate's Court yesterday on a charge of using the Empire Billiard, Saloon (19/. Willis street) as » common gaming-house. Mr. E. Page, S.M: (i was on the Bench. The accused, who. pleaded not guilty, was represented by Mr. J. Meltzer. ' T. C. Holmes said that for some time'co'mplaints had been received.by the police that a large amount of betting was being_ earned cii .in'billiard saloons iii "the ci.tr: lie eaid -tliat on- two or three occasions a!.' defective" had visited the Empire Billiard:Salooii7 andon-one-occasion he •was approached by the defendant and esked if he would like.to take a double at Auckland. Oil three other occasions the defendant had taken bets from the detective. On 3rd June, the defendant told tlio detective he would take no Iriore bets, 1 and no further betting took place. Detect ivo Jl: H. Watcrson said that, acting on instructions, bo called, at the Empire 1 Billiard Saloon at 8.35 p.m. on 30th May., -Ho ;Was standing alongside" the cash register when the defendant' came up and produced a double chart, and asked him if he would like to look at it, . The- odds on the chart in-one corner showed £8 to 2s. Witness gave •the defendant £1 to pay,for adouble. The defendant took tho 7 money and •went away to a private room, and when he came. out gave witness 18s change. Witness then asked if there was a chance of. getting 10s, on a horse running the next da}'. The defendant replied that and he.could put oh as much as he liked. He also told -witness-that if he wanted to bet at any other time he would take it. The" following day, 31st May,-witness Tvent to the saloon again,. and. gave tlic defendant 5s „tb : put on •a • horse racing a': Dunodin. • ,-The., defendant, told witness that lie would' hand the money over to the man next. door. ■ '

• On the ,• 2nd' June,: witness, gave the defendant Jss to put on a'horse racing at Auckland, and ttie defendant accepted the money.' On thbmbrning;of that day the defendant, in speaking.of .a previous bet/ said,' "Ton have had no 3uck." •:.Witness'. .replied, .'' 'jS t o, > the ■bookmakers must have .done pretty ■well." The'defendant then said, "The chap next door told uie he got hit pretty hard.?' The detective then said to the defendant-that ho supposed he only- got a small commission out of the bets' taken. In reply, the defendant said, or words to the effect, that he did not get very much. He told witness that: on the 31st May he only took 80s. On'3rd Jnne, witness said, he got into conversation with a'suspected bookmaker in Willis street. This man refused to bet with. him. Witness thought afterwards : that lie saw a man who frequented the Empire Billiard Saloon, in conversation with the suspected bookmaker. The next time the detective went to the saloon he asked the defendant if he could make a bet of -5s on a horse ai) Otaki. The defendant then told him that he had decided not to take any more bets. He stated that there was not enough money in it to make it worth while. . In answer to t a question by 3Vj.r. lUeltzer, witness' said ha.thought that the' frequenter of the billiard saloon lad warned the defendant about the witness? although'he was sure tho suspected bookmaker- did not know who witness was.. In answer to a question by the Magistrate, tho witness,'said''.that on one occasion he saw an assistant of the billiard saloon show a double chart to other men in.the room. All that particular time the defendant was not present. Detective-Sergeant Holmes stated that when ho called at the premises of the defendant with a search warrant, : the defendant'told him he had come -to the' wrong place. Witness searched the office, but could find no betting material of any description. ;In addressing the Bench, Mr. Meltzer submitted that there was no prima facie ease to answer. Betting in itself was not illegal, nor was the business of i betting'illegal, but what the Gaming Actmado illegal was the opening, or using of any premises for the purpose ,of .carrying on, the business; of betting, so that there must be some evidence of systematise'd" betting business. In. the present case the only evidence offered was that of Detective Waterson, who' gave' evidence of four isolated transactions. On tiio other hand, the detective stated that at no time did ho .see any other betting transactions .take place, and that the business appeared to'be run as a wellconducted billiard saloon. He submitted that tho facts fell short of proof, and that there was no'prima facie case to answer. The Magistrate reserved his decision.