GAMING LAW

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 March 1943, Page 2

GAMING LAW

THE RIGHT TO BET A general appeal against the conviction of Charles Henry Wrathall tobacconist (Mr A. K. Turner), lot being the occupier of premises m Symonds Street and using them as a common gaming house, was heard oy Mr Justice Callan on Wednesday last (says the “New Zealand Herald ). Wrathall was convicted by Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M., on January . 29, and sentenced to 32 days’ imprisonment with hard labour. The ground oi the appeal was that the evidence aict not disclose that the premises were used for betting. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr V. K. Meredith, opposing the appeal, outlined the evidence of police and detectives who visited the premises. Mr Turner raised objection that all the evidence of the acts of men who went into the shop on New Year's Day and all the evidence of telephone conversations on that occasion was inadmissible. Constable W. G. Gilliam gave evidence of visits to the appellant’s premises in December last and on New Year’s Day, when he made bets with the appellant. Constable A. T. B. Wade and Detective E. W. Mahood described the search they made of Wrathall’s premises on New Year’s Day, when they discovered evidences of betting. While they were there, a man came in and asked to make a bet, and there were two rings on the telephone. One caller wished to know the result ol a race and the other wanted to bet. A ten-shilling note tendered by Constable Gilliam was found in the shop. Mr Turner submitted that the evidence did not show that Wrathall was carrying on a bookmaking business, and. he quoted a decision of Mr Justice Salmond in 1923, in which it was held that there was nothing illegal in a person having a bet, provided it was not made a business. There had been no admissions on the part of appellant, and what had been said on the telephone was inadmissible, unless it led up to and explained some matter at issue. HIS HONOR’S COMMENT His Honor said he believed it was not unlawful in any way for persons to bet on a horse race by arranging something between themselves. However, against the contention that the deal with Constable Gilliam could be interpreted, as of such a nature, were the facts that on a holiday the premises of appellant were open; that the telephone was used and people arrived in the shop with the object of making bets. Surely those facts would lead the tribunal some way along the road to the view presented by the prosecuuoii. Counsel said the effect of the conversations in the shop amounted to no more than it was the opinion of the visitors that they would make ? bet and that it was their intention to do so. However, the opinion of anyone as to whether a bet could be obtained there was clearly inadmissible.

Mr Meredith submitted that the evidence showed that appellant had made four bets of different kinds and on different dates. There was evidence of a scout being posted outside on a day when a shop would normally be closed, but which was the day of one of the biggest race meetings in New Zealand. In reply to the scout’s warning, Wrathall had named the two officers who were regularly assigned to the detection of bookmaking. That Wrathall’s mind had adverted to the officers and his admission to the constable that he had to be careful, were evidence of his having been engaged in something unlawful. His Honor said he would take time to consider his decision.