BETS BY WIRE

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 2, 2 July 1938, Page 6

BETS BY WIRE

RACING FRAUDS

PRESS WRITER INVOLVED

ALSO TELEGRAPHIST

(From "The Post's" Representative.)

LONDON, June 8,

A verdict of fraud against three men was returned by a special jury in the King's Bench Division after the nine days' hearing of a sensational "bets by wire" case. It was found that a "master mind behind the whole fraud" had directed the handing in of telegrams after time and before, that the name of the horse had been added after the race, and that there were 14 fraudulent telegrams.

One of the men concerned was a newspaper racing correspondent. Hs was Richard Abranams, who writes under the name of "Beaufort" in the "Evening News." The jury also found that there was conspiracy on the part of W. Harvey, a General Post Office telegraph operator, who attended racecourses as part of his duty, and J. Millward.

The plaintiffs were the bookmaking firms of Ladbroke and Company, Limited, W. Angus and Company, limited, and Services Pari-Mutuel, Limited. In addition to Abrahams, Harvey, and Millward, the defendants included C. Smith and S. T. Pike, who had died after the action started.

The jury found that Smith was not guilty, and a charge against one Sheridan was withdrawn. Three K.C.s and ten junior counsels were briefed. It was alleged that the fraud in bets by wire totalled £5000. REMARKABLE STORY. The story was a remarkable one, Sir Patrick Hastings, K.C., counsel for the plaintiffs, told the jury. Without a certain disclosure, all the defendants might have escaped. In Ascot week, 1936, a bookmaker, Gascoine, met Sheridan, whom he knew, in a street in London and talked to him. When Gascoine got back to his office a telegram was handed- in from Ascot, signed by Sheridan, and backing a horse. Realising that the telegram must have been sent by someone using Sheridan's name, Gascoine spoke to Sheridan about it, and he replied, "Oh, that's all right. The telegram was sent off by my wife from Ascot." That, Sir Patrick declared, was an absolute lie. The telegram was sent off by Abrahams, though Gascoine did not know it. Gascoine caused inquiries to be made and found that a very' large number -of bets had been made with many bookmakers at the meeting resulting in some most surprising wins. Telegrams had been sent off in the names of Smith, Sheridan, and Pike, and the success that they had was amazing. ' Post Office investigators discovered that Harvey, the clerk in charge of the telegraph office, had a small dispatching office at Ascot, for the pur-, pose of what was known as the "iron stand." They found that all the telegrams had come through Harvey and had been handed in to Harvey before the "off." They had all, however, been dispatched after the "off." From the window where Harvey used to sit one could see the winning numbers. ANALYSIS OF BETTING. '] Analysing the betting of Abrahams, Sir Patrick said that, from June, 1934, to February, 1936, during 24 days Haryey was oh the racecourse in the Pari-Mutuel and Day account periods, Abrahams won £1100. Eventually Pari-Mutuel got tired of Abrahams and reduced his limit from £50 a day to £10 a day. In June, 1935, Abrahams got in touch with one Smith, who had an account at Ladbroke's, and seemed to have been an inveterate gambler in a small way. They agreed that Abrahams should send telegrams in Smith's pseudonym of "Golf Society," and that Smith's limit should be increased from £5 a horse to £25. 'There were winning totals of £360, £400, £570, £625, and £2000, always when Harvey was on duty. Sir Patrick said that Abrahams also got hold of Pike in April, 1936. Onj April 8 Pike wrote to three bookmakers, Ladbroke's, Day, and Angus, saying he wanted to increase his limit. He opened an entirely new account with Pari-Mutuel. About £860 was won from the bookmakers through Pike. Abrahams split up the money with the person whose name he was using. Sir Patrick dealt with an Ascot telegram which, he said, was typical. It was handed in at 2.29 p.m. That time was written in by Harvey. It was dispatched at 2.43 p.m. .Nobody could say who was the actual clerk who dispatched it, but 2,29 was before the race started and 2.43 was after the race had been won. There might, however, be cases of delay in regard, to perfectly honest telegrams. ABRAHAMS'S DOCUMENTS. Abrahams's discovery of documents, he continued, was grossly dishonest. Abrahams began by saying that he had not got a document of any kind. If it 'had not been for Smith's affidavit the plaintiffs might have been bound by that, but they pursued him by legal methods, even to the Court of Appeal, where he was ordered to produce all his banking accounts. They showed that every time an Abrahams telegram was sent off through Harvey in somebody else's name, and the bookmakers paid on it Abrahams got much the larger share of the money. They also showed that almost inevitably, when he received a cheque from Smith, Sheridan, or Pike, he went to the bank and drew a cheque in favour of himself, the money for which he received either in £5 or £1 notes. THE DEFENCE. Mr. J. D. Casswell, K.C., counsel for Abrahams, said that after hearing Sir Patrick's speech, he thought the jury might have wondered why the defendants did not slink out of court and go to Bow Street (the criminal Court). "There may be three reasons. The evidence is not sufficient to justify anyone in finding a man guilty of a criminal offence, and no jury would do it; in a criminal prosecution the plaintiffs would have had to put their cards on the table. The defendants would have known exactly what they had to meet. "Thirdly, the plaintiffs are now claiming what they could not have got in a criminal prosecution, the repayment of every successful bet made by Abrahams since 1935. The evidence is merely suspicion; there is not an atom of proof at all." Abrahams's father, counsel con^; tinued, was a racing correspondent for 30 years, and Abrahams himself had followed on for another 25 years. "He would have to be blind, deaf, and dumb, I suggest, after going to race meetings for that period and writing an article on racing every day, if he did not win quite frequently on a good horse."

Some years ago, when the Earl of Harewood and Lord Rosebery were stewards of the Jockey Club, and they thought irregularities were going on. they called in Abrahams to assist in

[their inquiries. Afterwards he was thanked for his assistance. Abrahams had tipped about 600 winners in a year, and from January 1 to May 6 this year he had already given 100 winners. ABRAHAMS'S DENIAL. Abrahams, in evidence, denying that he had ever kept back any document connected with the case, said that his banking account was put in his solicitors' hands as soon as they asked for it. From start to finish he had never tried to suggest that he had not sent telegrams in the names of Smith. Sheridan, and Pike.

Evidence for the defence was given by G.P.O. officials that it would have been impossible for Harvey to have carried out the frauds alleged. He was said to be above suspicion. Harvey denied that he had sent fraudulent telegrams and that he had filled in the names of horses in any telegrams.

Colonel Mansfield, a handwriting expert, said that, when Harvey wrote out a telegram he was asked to write in the witness-box he "made a deliberate attempt at disguise."

Asked if he had ever known the time of a telegraph form being found to be inaccurate, Harvey replied, "Several times." On one occasion, he said, he noticed that the clock in the office was wrong and all the telegrams which had been sent out until it was put right were incorrectly timed. LJE ADMITTED. Sheridan, in evidence, said that after Abrahams had given him 12 tips, on which he made a profit, Abrahams suggested an arrangement for bets on l the course. He then agreed that Abrahams should use his accounts with bookmakers because Abrahams told him he had special information. Cross-examined by Sir Patrick Hastings, Sheridan said he remember|ed meeting a bookmaker on June 19, 11936, in the City, just about the time (when a telegram in his—Sheridan's — name was sent from Ascot backing a I horse. Sir Patrick: Did you thereupon telephone to the bookmaker's office and say that it was your wife who had sent off the telegram from Ascot? —Yes. That was a lie?— Yes. Why did you tell that lie?—l did not want to disclose my source of information.

Sheridan said that he did not know that Abrahams was betting in Smith's name~at the time.

The final thing that absolutely put the "nail in the coffin of Abrahams and Harvey," Sir Patrick said, in his final speech, was the tracing of the banknotes paid by the bank to Abrahams.

"Their whole case is: 'We never met each other, we don't know each other, and we had no dealings together.' If, therefore, at this time, money passed from Abrahams to Harvey it is conclusive that there must have been dishonesty. Why had Harvey got one of Abrahams's bank notes in his pocket within three days of Abrahams having drawn the share-out? If they, did this, Abrahams ought to be driven, outside any form of public life, and Harvey ought not to be a member of the Post Office staff."

Mr. Justice Lawrence, summing up, said that the jury might think that the evidence about Abrahams's betting accounts disclosed a remarkable state of affairs. What was the explanation?

"Where you,find that, when a certain telegraphist is not on duty the man who is represented as such a wonderful judge of horse racing and to have such knowledge of form is making bets on very many days and is coming out with a net loss, you-.-will probably think it is very remarkable that on other days, when that certain telegraphist is on duty, he nearly always wins, and dpes always win on balance." *_ .'!./../,.'. " REMARKS BY THE JUDGE. After reviewing the evidence concerning Millward, Mr. Justice Lawrence said, "There is the fact:that Millward was not called. "When fraud is alleged against him, and there are some elements of suspicion, coupled with the fact that he wrote some of the telegrams that are charged with being fraudulent, you may think you would have expected him to go into the witness-box to answer the charges against him."

Turning to the case against Smith, Mr. Justice Lawrence said that there was no evidence to show that he knew of Harvey's existence.