TOTE OR BOOK

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 March 1922, Page 5

TOTE OR BOOK

- TRIAL D. McCarthy. ,1 VERDICT OF “NOT GUILTY.” r d S The trial of “Dan” McCarthy, charged at the Supreme Court yesteit day with following the occupation of s a bookmaker at Reef ton on January 1 10, was concluded after the “Star went to press yesterday afternoon, a , verdict of not guilty being returned. I The jury empannelied to hear the j case consisted of Messrs L. Armstrong 0 (foreman), Matkin Joseph, George Frankfort, Oliver McLean, W. T. s Kyle, F. W. Baldwin, H. W. Kitr cliing, E. Gale, Clarence Goodall, It s Flaherty, C. I’’. Blake, and A. Cunningham. 3 Mr. F. A. Kitchingham appeared ■ for the Crown and Mr. W. J. Joyce I represented the accused. Continuing his evidence in reply to 1 Air. Joyce, Detective Young said he could not say whether the reduction t of half shown at the back of the book > was consistent or not consistent with ’ the sharing of totalisator investments. Small bookmakers had different systems. Some used race-books, ; strips of paper, or a note book. Even i if McCarthy had been using his book 1 for bookmaking purposes, it was in a 1 very small way—there were no more 1 than six entries. He did not recollect McCarthy saying to hhn, when he > taxed him with receiving money, that he was a “hard man to come at that. Mr. Joyce said that it had been admitted that the act of putting money ; on the totalisator for. other people wa.s not an offence. 1 he defendant would swear that he Went io the races with McGregor and Nissen and placed L monev on the totalisator for them. . The book would show that such was ; the case, as the investments would be shown to have been halved as if shar--1 ing the investments with other people. The accused, giving evidence on his own behalf, said that he was a turner in the Railway Department, and interested in Imrse racing. He denied having laid odds at any of the meetings. He and McGregor and Nissen had bet together throughout. With the aid of the book he explained that the investments were shared by himself and others. He worked out his share in each case entered it at the hack of the book. The book in which these entries were made was the one picked up by the pqlice. He had known both Nissen and McGregor lor over 32 years. He bought the tickets in each instance and distributed the money. J le was not asked for tJie rickets by Detective Young when he was being examined in the Steward’s room. The book I- 11 when witness wtts pulling a handkerchief out. ( on- • t-'bh- Wilson then dived down and picked it up. and witness did not worry about it any further. In the room the detective said : “1 am surprised that you have taken to bookmaking.” Witness n plied: “What! is taking money bookmaking?” The detective said “yes.” and witness said “You’re a hard man to come at that game.” To Air. Kitchingham : lie had heard the evidence to the effect that h ■ was not seen to go to the totalisator and all lie could say was that he did go to the machine ami the witnesses were telling lies. When he was standing wiili Constable Wilson. witness said, “I had better go and get these tickets before I get ‘left.’” lie went; over and bought £lO worth of tickets. “Don't you think it remarkable,” asked Air. Kitchingham, “that you were watched by these men and were not seen to go to the machine?” “Well, J went !” said witness. “What did you do with the tickets?” “I destroyed them afterwards.” He did not think of producing the tickets. It did not occur to him, as he never thought ho would be in such a position. To Mr. Joyce : He tore nji every ticket he had after each race. William Ramsay McGregor, labourer, of Blackball, said ho had known the accused for about 15 years and had attended many meetings with him. At the meetings around Christmas time accused and Nissen were continually with him, except at the Hokitika meeting, which he missed owing to his car breaking down. They “put their heads together” (laughter) and 'McCarthy put the money on the machine. The dividends were divided after the money was taken from the totalisator —he was not likely to pay out before I The laughter which greeted this statement drew from, his Honour - a warning that unless there was silence the Court would be cleared. To Mr. Kitchingham: 'Witness said that McCarthy had shown him three or four times, the tickets he had . drawn. There was no reason why he should not occasionally put the money on himself, but ha had trusted McCarthy to do it for him. He and the other two were having a spot, and • when ho and McCarthy were being 1 taken away McCarthy dropped a book. ! Witness stopped to pick it up, but the Constable was on to him like a Springbok footballer. The loud laughter which greeted . this remark was too much for his Honour. “Clear the Court con- ! stable!” he said, and the sports ) shuffled out into the street. • The witness, replying further to Mr. i Kitchingham, said he did not know . that he was regarded in Blackball as • a bookmaker’s agent. Christian Nissen, hairdresser, said that he had been a mate of the accused - for years, and' went with him to the races during the Christmas carnival. He remembered backing Apres Moi at . the Reefton meeting. Accused was talking to Constable Wilson at the time and witness said to him “Are you going to the ’tote?” “Yes” said McCarthy. Witness thereupon told him to put £2 on Apres Moi. To Mr. Kitchingham : He could not y say that he actually saw the tickets which McCarthy obtained for Apres o Moi. o Mr. Joyce said that Jhe indictment charged McCarthy with carrying on the business or occupation of a bookmaker. It was peculiar that the Go-

vernment in its wisdom should bo announcing a bookmaker as a criminal while carrying on the biggest gambling machine known. Tne number of women betting on the races was becoming a scandal. The ethics of the case, of course, had nothing to do with the jury but the pecularity was there. Taking the evidence of the case, they would see that the first witness, Detective O’Connell was appointed by the Racing Conference (which ’ in many things was a law unto itself) to keep away undesirables from raced courses generally. He had not, I however, seen the accused and his friends at other meetings. Months a after the event occurnd, the detective said he was sure McCarthy did not go e to the totalisator, and yet in the LowS er Court lie went no further than to 0 >ay that he did not see him go. If . was sure that the accused did not ' go to the totalisator, he should have thought of it earlier. On the other ' hand they had the direct evidence of the accused that he did go to the I totalisator. Constable Wilson’s evideuce was also worthy of note. Did it not. seem illogical that a. man, after -* speaking to a Constable who had seen ” him receive money, would not go to 1 the totalisator? As lor the fact that < accused did not produce the tickets 1 when he was taxed by the detective • with receiving the money, that was 1 only due to the laid that he was llui- , ried at the lime. It was not as if 1 he had three hours or so to consider t the matter. The book which was 1 supposed to be such weighty evidence ’ against the accused had been seized by - tlie police and held by them, and it ‘ could not therefore be said that it I' hail been tampered with. And yot this book showed clearly that the en- ■ tries were consistent with totalisator entries. ■ Air. Kitchingham said that no I question of the ethics of belling eii- > tered into the case. If the jury were I satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that • a. breach of the Act had been commit- ’ ted they had to return a conviction • whether bookmaking was bad - The conflict of the evidence- narrowed ■ down to a very small margin, and 1 lie ' actions of tin- accused were undoubted- ■ Iv. to a considerable extent, consist- ■ ent with those of a bookmaker, and 1 the weitdit: of evidence, went to show • that on no occasion did accused go to 1 the totalisator, and even in the cvi- - deuce of the witnesses lor the defence it was not explained why neither Nis- ■ sen nor McGregor ever went near the ; totalisator. The. evidence of both ‘ Nissen and AlcGregor was open to question, as a person could be con- ' victed for betting with a bookmaker, and it was therefore very much to the interests of both men that they should 1 lie caulions. The statement made in the presence cd' the Constable relative 10 the totalisator might easily have been a. subterfuge. If a man was ■ anxious io make a bet with another and a constable were present, it was not likely that ho would give that- impression. The evidence ol the two detectives and the constable clearly showed that bookmaking had been carried on ami it was the duty of the jury, unless there was reasonable doubt, to find accordingly. His Honour said that the cvidvuce was conflicting and it was for the ' jury to decide whether to believe the evidence of the Crown or that of the defence. As to the reference that had been made to the fact that the accused, when he was interviewed by t.lic detect ivts, was in possession of totalisator tickets, considering that lie had the means of speedily clearing • up the case, it was surprising that he ‘ did not produce them. If the evi- ; deuce of Detective A'oung was to be 11 lieved then the statement of the accused —“I've only done it to-day—-don't be too hard on me!” was a direct admission of the offence. The accused on the other hand had quid' a different story. If they accepted the case for the defence, which, although not a complete answer to the Crown, might cast sufficient doubt on that < vidcnee to justify the jirisoncr's, receiving the benefit of it, thev were entitled to give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt. The jury retired shortly before 3.45 and returned ten minutes later with, their verdict.