GAMING ACT

Hokitika Guardian, 26 August 1929, Page 2

GAMING ACT

BREACH BY WOOLCLASSER

LAID DOUBLE WITH CONSTABLE

TIMARU, August 22. At the Magistrate’s Court ,to-day, before Mr C. R. Orr Walker, S.M., George Percival Munro, a woolclasser, was charged that at Timaru on July 31st he did publicly exhibit a double chart which contained a notification on behalf of himself as to betting on the Grand National Hurdles and the Winter Cup. , He was further charged with having committed a similar offence on August Ist.

OnHhe application of the police a charge of having carried on the business of a bookmaker preferred against Munro was withdrawn.

Mr W. H. Walton, who appeared for the defendant ,entered a plea of not guilty to both charges. ' Inspector A. S. Bird conducted the prosecution. Constable F. C. Lockie, Wellington said that he had been engaged in plain clothes duty at Timaru under instructions from Inspector Bird. About 5.35 p.m. on July 31st, witness was in the public bar of the Crown Hotel, and saw defendant displaying a doubles chart. Witness asked defendant if he could have a look at the card and defendant replied, “Certainly.” After looking at the, card .witness took n double on Red Fusehia in the Grand National Hurdles and Royal Saxon in the Winter Cup. The card was a home-made one; it was not a printed card. In reply to a question defendant stated to witness that his price, was £l2 10s to 2s 6d.. About four other men also took doubles with defendant in witness’s presence. Witness paid defendant 2s 6d and told him to put it down to “Darkie.” Defendant made an entry, .in a small black note-book. Witness was positive defendant was the man. He had one hand bandaged at the time, and Was dressed in a navy blue suit. To Mr Walton : Witness' had been round all the hotels on that day on special duty. He had had four or five drinks, squash and “pony” shandies—two. with Munro and two at the Empire Hotel; There were no prices on the doubles' card, but just the names of the horses and their weights. The squares had been marked with crosses to indicate that they had been taken About quarter of the spaces had been marked. In reply to a question as to where, lie could be found in the event of witness winning the double defendant replied . that he would he found in Crown Hotel bar. Witness asfced the barman defendant’s name, and was informed that he was Paddy Munro.

>Mr Walton: But he is charged as George Percival Munro! Inspector-Bird: Defendant admitted to the police that he was known as Paddy Munro..' Mr Walton (to the contsable): Were you. able to understand what you were doing ? r Witness: I was quite sober. I had only had a few light drinks. Inspector Bird: Mr Walton’s suggestion is an unfair one. The contsable took particular notice of' what had occurred, and described defendant subsequently to me.

. The Magistrate (addressing Mr Walton) : You must remember that a constable was there. for a particular purpose. Mr Walton: Yes that is so. Mr Walton said the defence would be a complete denial of the allegations. Defendant admitted he had been in the Crown Hotel, but denied that he had done any betting. . No one could have been more surprised than Munro when he was arrested. On his arrest he had only 13s 8d in his possession. If he had been bookmaking he would have had more money and articles of betting. George Percival Munro, a woolclasser, Burnside, said he had two or three drinks with friends at the Crown Hotel on July 31st. 'He had never had a doubles ’chart in his life. The constable was telling lies if he said that he had such a chart. . He denied that he had had a drink with Constable Lockie. He had not seen any betting going on. There were two |or three men named Munro in the town on July 31st but he find not seen any of them. Witness had had a few drinks and had gone home at 6 o’clock.

To Inspector Bird, witness admitted that his left hand was bandaged on July 31st. The constable was telling lies if he said "he had had a bet with witness. He could give no reason why the constable should commit perjury against him. The Magistrate said that he had been given a simple question to decide whether the constable had told the truth when he said that defendant was tiie man in thp hotel with the doubles chart. He liatj to remember that the constable was there for a specific purpose and it was his duty to be very careful in the matter pf identification. The constable had recognised Munro bv the bandage. The evidence was to the effect that defendant was in the bar at the. same time as the constable. Munro’s own evidence showed that such was the case. Tt was a matter for com hi out that although defendant stated that ho was in the bar drinking until his friend he had not called anyone to refute the