“OBLIGED CUSTOMERS”

Evening Star, Issue 22087, 22 July 1935, Page 10

“OBLIGED CUSTOMERS”

TOBACCONIST AND BETTING CHARGE OF BOOKMAKING FAILS Charges against Walter. Richard Sainsbury, a hairdresser and tobacconist, of using his premises as a common gaming house and of carrying on the business of a bookmaker were dismissed by Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., in the Police Court to-day. The only evidence of betting was transactions with a temporary constable, who told the tobacconist that ho was a painter. When his premises were searched Sainsbury contended that he had only taken the bets to oblige his customers, and made nothing out of them, the money being passed on to another person. The charges were denied by Sainsbury, % who was defended by Mr E, J. Anderson.

Chief Detective Young said that accused was a hairdresser and tobacconist in business at 260 Princes street. On account of certain information received by the police, Temporary Constable Thompson was instructed by the superintendent to make investigations, and he visited the shop on July 4. He went into the saloon and had a shave, and eventually his talk with Sainsbury turned to horse-racing. After some discussion Sainsbury produced a double chart, and the constable took a double for 2s 6d at 50 to 1 on Billy Boy in the Wellington Steeplechase and Guarantee in the Whyte Handicap. The constable also selected Guarantee and Lycidas, at odds of 40 to 1,2 s6d being invested. Accused wrote the doubles on a scrap of paper, presumably an old envelope, and placed the paper and the money in a tin at the back of the counter in the front shop. The constable again visited the shop four days later, and made further bets on Merry Peel in the Stewards’ Handicap and Silver Sight in the Whyte Handicap. On being asked if the bet could bo, made, accused produced a chart, which he said was the latest. A bet of 5s was made. The constable also made bets of 5s each on Reminder and Gold Fox.

The constable, continued Mr Young, returned to the shop on July 13, when accused said: “I am not doing anything. I only did it to oblige customers, and I am finished.” On the same day the police executed a warrant on his premises and found cards and clips of 5s doubles in his overcoat pocket. No other betting material was found. To Detective Sergeant and Detective Le Sueur, Sainsbury said: “ I have only been taking bets for customers for two or three months. I have made nothing out of it. I only pass it on to another person, and then I am finished.” “It is not suggested that he was acting in a large way,” said Mr Young. “ Nevertheless, he was acting as an agent for a, bookmaker, and therefore he is guilty of the offence of bookmaking. I do not propose to press the charge of keeping a common gaming house, but depend solely on the charge of carrying on the business of a bookmaker. The fact that a strange man could without difficulty make bets with the accused is proof that accused was carrying on the business of a bookmaker.” Under cross-examination by Mr Anderson,.the constable said that;he first produced a double chart. He was not certain of the exact words used, but accused was prepared to accept the money for the bets. They had discussed racing as persons interested in the sport. You took the doubles and asked for a piece of paper?—Yes. I was going to write them down, but accused did it. When we were discussing the colours of the charts Sainsbury said: “ Donaldson must be getting careful.” Was he able to explain the different colours? —No. You said you were a painter and you were getting a job around the corner? —Yes.

Did you make any remark tabout not being “ one of those,” meaning the police P—No. When you went back the second time did you say “ Our picking was not so good?”—No. I said my picking was not much good You saw on the Saturday morning that you were not going to bo further obliged?—l did not try to get any bets on. I went in to get some cigarettes. The only betting material you saw in .the shop was the double chart?—l saw two charts Mr Anderson: And the charts axe very easily obtained? TTie Magistrate (with a smile) ; That is a matter of common knowledge. , Mr Young: We find some difficulty in getting them. Mr Anderson; You would! (Laughter.) _ Cross-examined by Mr Anderson, Detective Le Sueur said accused had not disclaimed ownership or knowledge of the coat in which the betting slips werh found. While the police were on the premises, three customers came in but there was no attempt made at betAnderson submitted that the

charge of keeping a common gaming house must fail. His Worship The evidence does not justify the charge. . , . Mr Young: I will withdraw that Mr Anderson said it was perfectly clear that there were bets with Thompson, who went into the shop as a customer. When questioned by Detec-tive-sergeant Doyle, Sainsbury contended that he had taken the bets to oblige Thompson and that he was making nothing out of them. The evidence to prove that he was carrying on as a bookmaker, according to the legal interpretation, was inadequate. No system had been proved and the court had only the evidence of an isolated instance. Sainsbury had denied th# ownership of the coat in .which two slips were found. Dismissing the charges. His Worship said it was clear that Sainsbury wa* not himself a bookmaker. The question for the court was whether he wa§ a bookmaker’s agent. It was not unlawful to make a bet, hut it was unlawful to carry on the business of a bookmaker. When a search warrant was executed on the premises, only two betting slips were found, the shop had no telephone and there was not evidence that the premises were frequented for the purposes of betting. There was no evidence that Sainsbury was a bookmaker or an agents