BOOKMAKING CHARGE

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 47, 25 February 1937, Page 11

BOOKMAKING CHARGE

A FINE OF £20

AGENT ON COMMISSION

A plea of guilty to a charge of carrying on business •as a bookmaker was entered by Melville Lancelot Prier, a man on sustenance, when he appeared before Mr. H. P. Lawry, S.M., in the Lower Hutt Court today.

Sergeant J. W. McHolm said that at 4 p.m. on February 13 Constable Dwyer visited the Family Hotel and found Prier ringing up someone about a bet. Betting material, was found on the defendant. One .book showed sums imounting to £90 5s on various race meetings taking place that day. The sums varied from 2s 6d to £3. The defendant had £43 9s 9d in cash on him. He was a married man with five children, and was an agent for some other man.

Mr. C. R. Barrett, who appeared for Prier, said it was his client's first offence. The offence was one which was approved by a very large section of the public, although it was against the law of the country. Mr. Barrett said the Government's attitude was not very consistent, seeing that it allowed betting on the totalisator.

Mr. Lawry interjected that Mr. Barrett could hardly expect him to commsnt on the Government's attitude. The fact that a fine of £500 could be imposed showed that the Government did not support bookmaking.

Mr. Barrett replied that this was so, but no fine which was imposed would stop bookmaking. From what had been said by men prominent in racing circles it was thought possible that the present Government would alter the law in regard to bookmaking.

Mr. Barrett said that his client was an agent on a commission of 2s in the £, out of which he had to stand any bad debts. Prier was only making £1 to 30s a week as a commission man. He had not defrauded the sustenance authorities in any way. With regard to the £43, he was going to hand it over to his principal that day. The £90 represented business over a number of days, and included sums which had not been collected .and "funds-up" betting. Prier, apart from this particular offence, was a respectable member of the community.

Mr. Lawry'.said that in view of the fact that Prier had disclosed his earnings to the sustenance authorities he would not make the-fine as heavy as he had intended. He would impose a fine of £20.