TOTALISATOR TICKETS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIX, Issue 194, 18 July 1939, Page 4

TOTALISATOR TICKETS

CASE FROM FEILDING. ' ACCUSED NOT GUILTY. Charged with the theft of two totalisator tickets issued by the Feilding Jockey Club, and valued at £GS ss, the property of Archibald AlcCorkindale. on April 11 last at Feilding, Sydney Herbert Hume, dairy factory hand, ol Palmerston North, pleaded not guilty when he stood his trail before His Honour Air. Justice Blair and a jury of twelve in the Supreme Court yesterday. Air. 11. 1(. Cooper (Crown solicitor) conducted the ca.se for the prosecution, and Air. T. F. Helling appeared for accused. The jury were empanelled as follow: —Alessrs AA T . Alitehell (foreman), AA 7 . A. Kelly, G. R. Haley, AV. H. T. James, AV. Jenkins, H. CL AA’alker, S. J. AAlnterburn, O. Rasmussen, T. C. Bycroft, J. Shaw, J. .Tohanson and A. Young. Evidence was given by Archibald AlcCorkindale, painting contractor, of .AVairoa, that lie attended the Feilding races on Easter Alonday last, nnd •backed Lucullus Boy, who won the last race and paid a dividend of £6 >os Gd. Witness bought two tickets at the £5 window and was under the impression that he had folded them up and put them in a vest pocket. After the race he felt very pleased, but not so pleased later, when he found he had lost the tickets. Ho searched until ; darkness canto and then reported the loss of the tickets to the secretary (Air E. Goodbehcre). Cross-examined as to what he suggested happened to the tickets, witness said he nearly got shut out at the totalisator after arguing to himself whether he had backed the right horse, then rushed round to see the race, and then apparently lost them. He did not check the tickets to see whether they were for No. G (Lucullus Boy). SECRETARY’S EVIDENCE.

Edmund Goodbehere, secretary of tbo Foilding Jockey Club, gave evidence that the totaiisator would be open for half an hour before the race, which was timed for 4.57 p.m. Subsequently Mr. McCorkindale notified witness that lie had lost two £5 tickets on Luculus Boy, and signed a statement (produced) to that effect. Later, the totaiisator pool for the last race showed a surplus. Unclaimed dividends at the finish of the race that day totalled £153 5s 6d. There were 923 10s units registered on the totaiisator for Lueullus Boy, inclusive of all classes of tickets, and representing a total investment of £4GI 10s. Tickets cashed on the course consisted of 422 10s tickets, 187 £1 tickets and eight £o tickets, accounting for 876 of the 10s units. This left 47 outstanding. Since then four 10s tickets, eleven £1 tickets and the two £o tickets in question had come in, leaving one 10s ticket unclaimed. On the Tuesday afternoon accused came in to see witness, bringing two £5 tickets (produced). Accused said they were his and was informed that two £5 tickets had been lost and payment consequently could not be made until the matter was placed before the ■ominittee. The two tickets (produced) vero of consecutive issue. Accused exlained that he did not cash the tickets m the course as he had to leave to meet the Auckland express, and did not see the race. Accused, when requested, signed his name on the two tickets. Accused made no answer when told that two tickets had been lost; he ;aid very little at all. Crore-exainined, witness stated that any dividends unclaimed were retained l>v the club. Should a man submit a ticket after the race meeting and say he had found it, the matter would be referred to the stewards, but lie would be unlikely to be paid. The club had not been confronted in the past with such a situation. There were always a number of tickets which were unclaimed and appeared to have been lost. I"chanical defects were very Small, and winning tickets not claimed were most probably those issued in mistake or another number. They would _ be liiscarded or torn up without examination. It appeared to b? a common prac-

tieo with certain people to pick up tickets and examine them with the possibility of securing one entitled to a dividend.

Evidence was given by DetectiveSergeant A. B. Meikleiohn, who stated that he interviewed accused on April 18 and obtained a statement (produced) in which accused said that when lie and his family returned from the Podding /aces his boy produced a number of totalisator tickets he had picked up. Among them were two £5 tickets on Lucullus Boy, a winner that day. The next day lie presented the tickets and was interviewed by the secretary (Mr E. Goodbehere), whom he told he had bought the tickets. He did not like to contradict himself later. Accused added that he did not intend to claim the dividends.

Air Belling intimated that he did not propose to call evidence. In his address to the jury counsel contended that it must be proved b.v the Crown that accused, when the tickets were found, had reasonable grounds for belief that the owner could be found.

Summing up, His Honour declared that the Crown had to prove that accused, on finding the tickets, had reasonable grounds for believing or knowing that the owner could be found; also, that, when he interviewed Mr Goodbehere, he intended to deprive the owner of his rightful property. _ As ordinary men of the world, the jury were required to use their commonsense in the matter.

After a retirement of an hour and ien minutes the jury returned with a verdict of not guilty and accused was discharged.