BETTNG CHARGES

Gisborne Times, Volume LXII, Issue 9997, 28 April 1925, Page 7

BETTNG CHARGES

CHARLES CROON BEFORE . COURT. ALLEGED LOITERING FOR THE PURPOSES OF BETTING. • INFORMATION DISMISSED. Charles Croon appeared in the Police Court yesterday before Mr E. C. Lovvey, S.M., on a charge of loitering in the street for the purpose of betting. There were several heated exchanges between the police jirosecutor and counsel for .defence as to the propriety of cross-exaination by the prosecutor of Crown witnesses giving evidence.

Croon, who was represented by Mr L. T. Burnard, pleaded not guilty lo the charge.

Senior-Sergeant Fitzpatrick said that on the afternoon of April 20, while standing at the corner of Peel St. and Gladstone Road, he saw iCiroon further down the street on the left side of the footpath. Within five minutes lour men came along and spoke to him. One man named Burne, after speaking to Croon, crossed the street where he joined others. Another man who spoke to Croon was llolan. He saw Croon hand Dolan a piece of paper and he then joined Burne and another .man. Croon then went into a nearby shop, and going down the street he found Burne perusing a betting c-ard, and lie asked Dolan for the race cards Croon iiad given him. Mr Burnard: You call these racing cards. They appear to be names of horses and weights. The Senior-Sergeant: They are known as race cards. Continuing lie said that he interviewed defendant, informing him that he proposed reporting him for frequenting arid using the streets for betting. He produced iho cards and Croon replied: “I don’t think they’re mine. Anyhow punters are worse than I am.. You want to" give them a shake up on race day.” There were races in progress at Avondale on that date. “I have known the defendant for close on four years”, continued tln>. Senior-Sergeant, “and ho is a recognised bookmaker. He has no other employment and practically lives m the street. I have seen him on other race days speaking to men in the street and lie would then immediately retire to some nearby shop or alley wav.

Mr Burnard: When yen say that lie is a recognised bookmaker, you don’t infer that you have acquired your own experience from your own knowledge. You haven’t made bets with him?--No.

So you only know from what you’ve been told?—Yes; T don’t want 'to bo hard on Croon in this case, but if you force me, .1 will do so. Constable Thompson stated that he had known the defendant for the past three years and he did not have any occupation and that lie was well known as a bookmaker. He had frequently seen Croon in the streets between Peel St. to the Masonic Corner between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on race-days. He had seen men accost him and hand him money. Mr Burnard objected to the’ evidence on the ground that it was not relevant to the case and was not directed to the charge. The Senior-Sergeant: But it is intended to show system.

Continuing, witness said that he had seen Croon hand men money in the. streets. The cards were known as racing cards and were used by bookmakers and punters. The Senior-Sergeant: What- i.s, a punter?—A man who make bets with bookmakers. Mr Burnard: In a town like this X suppose there are several hundred punters. Witness: Yes ; there are a good few punters in Gisborne. (Laughter.) Then you would expect a few hundred people to be in possession of these cards on race days?—No; only tv few dozen.

On the application of the police a certificate clearing him of liability to prosecution was granted to Leonard James Burne, a plumber, who said that, ou April 20, races were being held at Avondale, Auckland. Did you have any transactions with Croon that day?—No. When did you do so last ?—A long time ago. You made a statement- to me?—!. don’t remember. Is this your signature Mr Burnard (excitedly): I object to this evidence. Don’t answer that question, witness. The Senior-Sergt. cannot cross-examine his own witness.

The Senior-Sergeant: I can treat my witness as hostile. The Magistrate ruled that the police could treat the witness as hostile.

The Senior-Sergt.: Did you sign the statement?—i. don’t remember. Mr Burnard: The man was in the hands of the police, and was apparently asked to sign the statement while he was in a drunken condition. Further, witness said lie was locked up early in the morning and bailed out in the afternoon. He remembered the Senior-Sergeant touching him on the shoulder in the afternoon when he was reading the race card on which there were certain horses marked.

Did you have any bets on tho horses marked ?—No. The Senior-Sergt: I am going to refer you to the statement at 6 p.m. Mr Burnard submitted that the Senior-Sergt. could not do that, unless tho witness was ruled to he hostile. The Bench would have to take into consideration the witness’s demeanour. The police had apparently got him to sign the statement when he was drunk. Was it a proper procedure?

The Magistrate: J,t is quite obvious that tlie witness is accidentally or deliberately not giving what it was thought lie would have remembered. Mr Burnard said that there was nothing before him as to what be had previously said or done. The Magistrate: Inferentially tho certificate asked for ■at the outset was to nroteet the witness. Mr Burnard: There was no evidence of hostility, except that the . police could not get the answers desired. The Magistrate: I am going to allow the Senior-Sergt. to cross-exam-ine. 1 am satisfied that he is not speaking 4 he truth. In the course of the statement, submitted to the Bench by the Senior Scrgt., the witness had stated that on the dav of his arrest, he had met Charles Croon, and had made two bets with him on horses running at f,be Avondale meeting at Auckland. He bet one neund on Narrow Neck, and ten shillings on Transformer; the first 1 -mentioned horse • came .second, and. Transformer won its raco.^ Is that your signature ?—Yes.

Mr Burnard: The statements in that document are not correct?—No. You never had a hot with Croon that clay?—oN. Never had a lwt qii Narrow Reek in the hurdles?—No. Or on Transformer?—No; I never had a net at all.

The Magistrate: Who were von going to bet with?—With anyone, but In ever bad the money, With whom would you have bet? —T don’t know. Mr Burnard: When the uolice got the statement von wore in the nolice’s ha n ds‘ on another charge?—Ay>s. ~ Ho"- mnnv statements did you make?—l don’t know. Do you know u;hat was ill those statements? —No. 1 So a good deal depended on the we xr the police - reported the matter? The Sonior-Sercrcant objected and sa’d he liked a fair and .square fight, The Senior-Sergeant: You signed the bond in my office-that day?—i don’t remember.

You signed the. statement . at the samo time?—l don’t know. ’’ . You have not been in Court si,uco 1922 and, therefore, the police gave you the benefit of a decent character. How many children have you got?— Five. Arthur Dolan, boarding-house keeper, said that, on the afternoon of April 20, he spoke to Croon, but did not receive anything from him. He had handed the Senior-Sergeant a raco card. . Mr Burnard: These cards are largely circulated found tho town on race days ?-*—’Yes.

(Punters like to see them?—Yes. The Senior-Sergeant: Who prints these cards. 'I see the imprint is the Te Ran Press?—lcouldn’t say. Are those cards printed by the To Rau yPress and distributed free of charge?—l don’t know. The Magistrate: Where did you get those cards? . I picked up the card off the footpath. Didn’t Croon hand you the cards ? —No, J, ust passed the time of day when I spoke to him. For the defence Mr Burnard said that Dolan’s evidence was negligible, and proved that the inference made by theSenior-Sergeant was incorrect. The latter might have seen Croon hand two pieces of white paper to Dolan, but they could not be the race cards, because Dolan had stated that he inched them up. He had stated that he had not seen Croon, and had no transactions with him. Burn also deposed that the statement held by the police was untrue. It was not fair that Burne while in charge for another offence should have the statement taken from him. The motive in the witness’ mind was: “ I want u> get out of this trouble, so I must give the police what they want”, and when lie came to the Court lie told the real facts of the case. The only evidence for the police was that of two menwho proved nothing. There was therefore only the evidence of the two police officers left. Even if the police could have proved that the.socalled ‘race-cards” had been passed over by Croon to the other witnesses it established nothing, for anybody was entitled to pass such cards about. In proving their case the police had to show that the cards were handed over as part of a betting transaction.

The Senior-Sergeant said that they had tho cvidencethat the defendant was a known bookmaker, and lmd been seen speaking to four men within five minutes, and bad boon seen to go into a nearby shop with one of them, and I-lis Worship could draw his own conclusions from that evidence. Again, the witness Burne was perfectly sober when he made bis statement, and His "Worship was quite entitled to use it. The Magistrate said that the State bad prohibited any gambling with the exception of legalised gambling on the totalisator. in the present case lie was net entirely satisfied, and was in some doubt. Burne’s statement was entirely contradictory. There was no proof what the slips of paper passed over were, and on the evidence he could not enter a conviction. The information would therefore be dismissed.