UNREMUNERATIVE

Evening Star, Issue 25700, 25 January 1946, Page 4

UNREMUNERATIVE

SMALL BOOKMAKER CHARGED The unremunerative side of bookmaking was underlined in the Police Court this morning, before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., when George Guiseppe Seelen, a clerk, aged 40, -appeared on a charge of bookmaking. Outlining the offence. Detective-sergeant H. Le Sueur said that, acting on information received, Detective-sergeant Brown had interviewed the accused at his work on January 15, and found in his possession two doubles charts, one with 47 half-crown bets taken, and the other with 25 florin bets, both in regard to meetings on January 19. He also had in his possession an account from a bookmaker with betting transactions covering the period from December 22 to January 5. The amount bet was £54 ss, and winnings amounted only to £29 5s 6d The account also showed an amount of £1 19s 6d as discount, and a further £2 2s as commission. These transactions showed a loss of over £2O. With the accused's permission, De-tective-sergeant Brown accompanied him to his home, where he found six more doubles charts covering a plriod of from September 29 last to December 29. On these 321 doubles amounting to £37 5s liad been taken. If these doubles had been struck accused would have had to pay out £42. The winning horses had been taken, therefore the accused had lost, if he paid out. £4 15a on these transactions. Detective-sergeant Le Sueur said the accused was a married man with two children. He was working on night duty at the ißoslyn Mills, and was in no' position to go laying doubles. Representing the accused, Mr I. L. Turnhull pointed out that he operated in a very small way, solely issuing doubles charts, and that his operations had resulted in no pecuniary benefit. He had been in and out of work for 12 months, and had not been in work at all for four of these months. Regarding the bookmaker's account, it was denied that the accused was a bookmaker's agent. Having got betting into his blood, he had just plunged without regard to losses. A small fine would be a heavy penalty. " I am extremely dubious about the contention that this is the accused's own betting," commented the Magistrate in regard to the bookmaker's account. " Commission has been allowed, and commission means an amount paid to an agent. It may he that the bets were made by himself, and that the bookmakers _ created a special agency for him on this account. '.' The amount involved is somewhat innocuous. There is little difference between an art iinon stake andu, a double bet of 2s, except that one is permitted by law and the other is not. In view of the defendant's circumstances, I cannot treat this as I wouhl most cases which come before the court." The accused was convicted and fined £ls, with costs (10s), in default 10 days' imprisonment..