BREACH OF GAMING ACT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 209, 21 August 1911, Page 5

BREACH OF GAMING ACT

ALLEGED BETTING AT HASTINGS.

WELLINGTON EX-BOOKMAKER. VISITS OLD SCENES. At the Napier Magistrate’s Court this morning, before Mr. S. E. McCarthy, S.M., John Laidlow was charged with following his occupation as a bookmaker on July 26th, by betting at the Hawke’s Bay Hunt Club race meeting. Inspector Dwyer appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. E. G. Fitzgibbon (Wellington) for the defence. Inspector Dwyer said the case, was laid under subsection 2 of section 2of the Gaming Act. The bookmakers were allowed on the grounds at the meeting, provided they did not bet. This promise was kept well until the last two races, when the detectives saw the bookmakers betting, amongst therm accused.

Detective Cassells, who knew accused to be a Wellington b >okmaker, saw him at the Hunt Club races. There was no facility for betting on the course. Accused was with his mate Ballan. About 3.36 p.m. Laidlaw and Ballan were standing together on the lawn. A man walked up to Laidlaw and spoke to him. The man walked away, and Laidlaw turned and spoke to Ballan, who took out a> small book which he held in the palm of his hand, and made an entry. About a minute afterward&► the same thing occurred again, and again on four other occasions before the race started. After the,, race Laidlaw and Ballan went into the saddling paddock and examined a book, and then came back to the lawn, where they were joined by one of the men who had spoken to him before the race, and the three walked away at 4.4 p.m. Laidlaw and Ballan stood -on the lawn near witness and Detective Butler, and they saw a man come up and offer Laidlaw a bank note. Laidlaw saw him (the detective) and refused to take the note. Lonergan looked to where they were standing and put the note in his pocket. Witness then walked away. At 4.12 p.m. Laidlaw and" Ballan were still on the lawn. A man went up and joined them. Ballan walked away a little, produced his b ook, and made an entry. At 4.15 a man spoke to Ballan, who went under the grandstand, produced his book, and made an entry. The same thing happened three times before the race. During the race Detective Butler and witness were standing near the accused and Ballan. A horseappeared to have a good chance at the back of the course, and he heard Laidlaw say to a native, " Here you are ' even money, or how much?” The native nodded and spoke to accused, w’ho turned to Ballan and said, " Two quid,” and Ballan made an entry in the little book. Witness was standing on the steps above Ballan, some six or seven feet away. He could see the book plainly, but could not distinguish the writing. After going a couple of hundred yards the horse in question fell. At the finish of the race Laidlaw said to they native, "I will see you in the morning.?’ Later, he saw accused, Ballan, and the native leave the course together. In bookmaking it was always customary for one man to lay the odds and the other write them up, and he had no doubt they were carrying out their usual practice of betting. To Mr. Fitzgibbon: He saw Laidlaw refuse to take Lonergan’s note, and on no other occasion did he see money produced. He never saw Laidlaw make an entry. He arrived on the course at about 2.30 that afternoon. He interviewed none of the men who had spoken to Laidlaw. He devoted the whole of his time during the last two races to watching Laidlaw and Ballan. On all occasions, except one, the men making bets spoke to Laidlaw. He did not knw that Ballan had aattended race meetings since last January; bookmakers were not often allowed on racecourses; they did most of their betting in the streets and publichouses. Detective Butler corroborated the evidence given by Detective Cassells.

To Mr. Fitzgibbon: As a result of the decision of the stewards, he had told some of the bookmakers that they could remain on the course provided they did not bet. He had seen Laidlow on every course in Hawke’s Bay. Mr. Fitzgibbon, opening for the defence, said that there was no direct evidence to show that betting had taken place. The only occasion upon which money had been offered it had been refused. A bet must be proved by conclusive and sufficient evidence. An offer to bet was not an offence. The actual betting must take place before an offence had been c«nmitted. He held that this proof was not forthcoming, and asked for the .case to be dismissed. ’ (Left Sitting.)