THE GAMING ACT.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 1979, 22 November 1921, Page 6

THE GAMING ACT.

HEAVY FINES ON LOCAL RESIDENT. EXHIBITING DOUBLE CARD AND LOITERING FOR BETS. The. charges against Edwin Pratt, a local resident, in connection with alleged" breaches of the Gaming Act, wort heard at the Palmerston .North Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr .1. L. Stout, S.M. Pratt v,as eh.i'ged: (1) With exhibiting a rloeunu'iit on belting, to wit, a double. oai'O on the New Zealand Cup and Stewarla' Handicap races, held at Christchurch on November 5; and (2) that he frequented Church Street for the purpose of betting. Mr If. R. Cooper appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. De-tective-Sergeant Quirke prosecuted. Constable P.* Edwards, stationed at Mount Cook, Wellington, said that, under instructions received on November 1, he proceeded to Palmerston North. He went to the Occidental Hotel at about 4 p.m., and stayed there under his own name. When he entered the defendant Pratt was sitting on a lounge in the passage. He introduced himself to witness, witness telling him his name was Edwards and that he came from Waimate, South Canterbury. To this Pratt replied: "I came from there, too, but it was a long time ago." Defendant said: "You used to live off Timaru Road." Witness replied "Yes." Pratt said: 'I used to know you well, but you were small then.' Defendant had something that looked like a race card in one hand. The Magistrate: What was it; a programme or a double chart? Witness: Either a programme card or a double card; I could not say for certain. Continuing, he said defendant then made some entries in a small blue note-book. The telephone rang and Pratt answered. Witness left the hotel, and did not see him again that day. On November 2 witness saw Pratt' at 10 a.m. He was continually in and out of the hotel On November 3 witness again saw him at the same hour. Up till about 12 o'clock witness saw him taking several bets on the street and in the bar of the hotel. He also made entries In a book< while in the passage. About 2.40 p.m. witness spoke to Pratt, and asked" him what would win the New Zealand Cup. He replied: "Sunart is my fancy." Witness said his fancy was "Rouen." They then had a drinktogether and returned to the footpath. A couple of men passed them going into the hotel. One of them said: "Is there anything doing to-day, Ted." Pratt replied: "Not'yet." About 4.45 p.m. witness saw Pratt distributing programmes or double charts. Witness went to him, and took a 5/ bet on Rouen in the Cup. When asked what the limit was Pratt replied £ls first, £5 second. Pratt then asked witness if he would like anything in the double. Witness said he had seen nothing other than what had appeared in the papers. Pratt thereupon handed him a double card and programme (produced). Witness consulted the documents and said he would let him know the result of his consideration later. Pratt had a pack of double cards and programmes. On the morning of November 4 he again saw Pratt at the Occidental Hotel. From 10 to 12 o'clock defendant was in and out of the hotel, on the street, and also visited the Occidental tobacconist shop (next door) several times. At about noon witness was sitting on the - lounge in the passage of the Occidental Hotel with another man, when he saw Pratt approach an elderly man, and hand him a race card. The man handed it back to Pratt, together with two bank notes. About 5.50 p.m. on the same date witness was standing at the Occidental door with him. He said: "I think I'll go away home now. There is no more business here for me." These were not the only transactions witness saw Pratt make that day. Next morning witness met Detective-Sergeant Quirke and Detective Culloty, who searched him and took all the money he possessed. They handed him back a £1 note, the number of which was A 633429. Witness then- went to the Occidental Hotel and saw Pratt in the bar. Witness spoke to him and they walked out to the footpath. Witness went over into the Square and sat down for a while. When he returned he could not see Pratt about, but he appeared later from the tobacconist shop. Witness handed him the banknote on the street, saying, "Ore Ore in the Hurdles and Michaela in the Stewards." Pratt replied: "Right, half on each." He entered the hotel and, apparently, made the entry in a book. Witness then wont to the rear of the Police Court, and was searched by the detectives, but no money was found on him. On the afternoon of November 7 witness was again searched. Witness then had £1 17/1, which he retained. Witness went to the Occidental Hotel, and met Pratt, and asked him if h'- had the dividend from Ore Ore. Pratt, paid witness 14/ for the hair-ticket on that horse. Witness returned to the rear of the. Court and handed the 14/ to Detective Culloty, and still had the £1 17/1 left. To Mr Cooper: When Prntt introduced himself he asked witness if he was looking for the "missus of the house." Witness said: "Yes." adding that he was also looking for work, and had come from Waimate. Witness naturally assumed that when the bank-notes were being handed to Pratt that the latter was makiner bets. Witness was only a short distance away when these bets were made. Detective-Sergeant Quirke said that on November 5, at 9.25 a.m., he searched Edwards and gave him the banknote No. A 633429. At about 10.10 a.m. he saw Pratt standing at the side door of the Occidental Hotel, later going inside. Half an hour later he was still moving in and about the hotel. At this time witness saw Enwards hand something to Pratt; the latter walked into the hotel and Edwards returned to the rear of the Police Court, where he was searched. He then had no money. About 11.30 a.m. witness asked accused to accompany him to the Gardens, and said: "You have been betting a lot lately." Pratt said: "No." Witness was joined in the garden by Senior-Sergeant Fraser. and Pratt was taken to the Police Station. A search revealed £1 2/8 in money, a blank note-book, a cheque book, and another note-book containing SS entries of names, with amounts of money mentioned alongside each of them. • There was no complete name, only the ■whole or part of the Christian or surnames .or initials. Those were the usual bookmaking entries. Asked what they represented, defendant replied: "People owing me money." Asked what they owed the money for, he said: "For different things." The cheque book blocks were dated from October 26 (no year given) to November 2. Cheques to the amount

of £204 12/6 had been drawn by Pratt during that period. No complete names were recorded on the blocks. Accompanied by Detective Culloty, witness visited defendant's house. Several drawers were searched in the bedroom, and sundry papers and betting documents were found, as well as £47 in money. One of the documents contained a request from New Plymouth for Pratt to invest certain sums on certain horses at races held at Auckland and Christchurch. Witness reaa other documents containing instructions to invest, results, and records. Defendant had done no work for some months past, and almost daily during the last two months had haunted the Occidental Hotel and its precincts. To Mr Cooper: Witness said that where the entries were recorded in the manner mentioned it left no other thought but that they related to betting. It was the usual thing. Some bookmakers, however, kept their books better than others. Replying to a suggestion that the sums entered in the books might be debts owing to him whilst in the tobacconist line, witness said that this was most unlikely, and in any case Pratt had failed to say so at the police station. Norman Stevens, bank clerk, at the Bank of New South Wales, whereat Pratt had an account, gave formal evidence Detective Culloty gave evidence corroborative of the previous witness's testimony. For the defence, Mr Cooper said he did not propose to call evidence. With regard to the charge of exhibiting a double card, counsel submitted that the case had not been proved. _The only evidence against the defendant was that on one of the dates in the Occidental Hotel he handed a doublecard and programme privately to Edwards. Besides that Edwards, of course, saw Pratt hand two cards to another man, but there was no evidence that they were double-cards Exhibiting a card to Edwards only did not amount to "publicly exhibiting." Mr Cooper quoted authorities on this point. Counsel and the Bench entered into argument concerning previous rulings. His Worship pointed out that, it had been found that in certain cases publication to one man was sufficient. It was clear to the Court that defendant had shown himself to be a bookmaker willing to make double bets on the card given to Edwards, and that he had made single bets. In reference to the other charge, Mr Cooper contended that there was no evidence that defendant had frequented the street "for the purpose of betting." The Magistrate: I think the evidence is very strong. Mr Cooper, in the course of argument, said that the fact that a man accepted a bet in the street did not irfean that he had loitered there for that purpose. There was only one occasion" during the three and a-half davs on which it was known that defendant actually accepted a. bet in the street. The Magistrate held that the evidence was sufficient to warrant a conviction on each charge. Asked if anything was previously known against defendant. DetectiveSergeant Quirke said that this was the first offence. Pratt had beep fairly wide in his operations. The while not wishing to se P a very severe penalty inflicted, would like this case to be a lesson to others. Defendant was a married man with several of a family. His Worship sa'd it was unfortunate that men bookmaking in a small way should get caught, while those operating on a larcre scale should escape "scot free." Perhaps the reason was that the smaller men were not so cunning as the "bigger" ones. The latter knew a little too much for them. However. Pratt took this business up with his eyes open, and he knew that extra special efforts were being made to put this class of thine down. The warnings throneh the press had been numerous, while he also had the experiences of those bookmakers convicted to go by. For frequenting the street for the purpose of betting Pratt would be convicted and fined £lO, and on the charge of exhibiting a double card, £lO, with costs in each case.

ALLEGED GAMING HOUSE, DECISION RESERVED. William Hefferman was charged that on November 5 he used his premises in Main Street as a common gaming house. Mr H. F. O'Leary appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Constable Edwards said that on November 3 he went to defendant's shop and had a shave, after which he made certain enquiries and was directed to Witness asked him "How was it for 10/ on Warlove for the New Zealand Cup?" He replied. "Right." Witness handed him £l, which he put in the safe, and gave a 10/ note in change. Defendant said his limits were £lO first and £5 second. Defen-

dant did not make any entry in witness's presence. On November 4, about 9.30 a.m., witness again visited the shop. Defendant was behind the counter talking racing with another man. He had a race programme in his hand. Witness purchased a packet of cigarettes and left. Next day witness met Detective-Sergeant Quirke and Detective Culloty at the rear of the Police Court. Witness was searched and all his money taken, the de-tective-sergeant then handing him back a Bank of New Zealand £1 note (778120). Witness proceeded to the shop and handed Hefferman the £1 in question, saying: "Hylands in the Hurdles and Bonnetter in the Riccarton Welter." Hefferman replied: "Right; but Bonnetter may not run, as she raced in Masterton, but you will get your money back if she does not start." Witness asked for a doublechart. He said he had given them all away. Hefferman then asked him what he fancied. Witness replied he fancied nothing, and that he had only picked one double in his life; that was Mortham —Tin Soldier at Dunedin two years ago. Witness returned to the rear of the Court, and was searched by the detective-sergeant. No money was found on him. At 10.40 a.m. he was searched again and the detectivesergeant handed him a 10/ note (S 70980). Witness again went to Hefferman's. The detective-sergeant was standing close by. Witness handed Hefferman the 10/ note, saying: "Rouen in the Cup." Hefferman put it in his pocke, saying: "Do you want to have a chance, because there wan a chap in here this morning who told me he had a dream last night, and that he saw Royal Star winning. the Cup. with Rouen close up." Witness replied: "That ought to be good enough for a second." Some time after witness went to Hefferman to collect a dividend, as Bonnetter ran second in the Riccarton Welter. Defendant was away in Wanganui and he could not see him until Tuesday, the Bth. Consequently, witness went back on the Bth and asked for the dividend. He replied: "I don't know you. Never seen you before. You must have mistaken the shop." Witness replied he was not quite so "green" as that. Defendant repeated that he did not know him. Witness told him he was a nice sort of a man; when he got "struck" not to pay out. Witness left and searched for Detective - Sergeant Quirke. To Mr O'Leary: On the two last occasions the numbers of the two notes were taken. Witness admitted he came to Palmerston North specially for the purpose of getting evidence against suspected breakers of the Gaming Act. Hefferman did not make any entries in witness's presence, nor did he produce any books. No one else was present when the bets were made. Detective-Sergeant Quirke, after outlining the movements of Constable Edwards, said that, in company with Detective Culloty, he made a search of the shop, telling Hefferman he believed he was betting. Amongst the notes found in Hefferman's possession was a recorded note given him by Edwards for a bet. Amongst papers found was one which bore the initials "R.D.," and related to some transactions. Detective Quirke said these were the initials of a well-known bookmaker in Palmerston North. Other papers contained entries of bets on various horses. Programmes of races and double-cards were also found, besides other records, all connected with horse-betting. Defendant was taken to the police station. Other evidence given by this witness was of a corroborative nature. To Mr O'Leary: It was quite true that defendant had a legitimate retail business—hairdresser, tobacconist and billiard-room keeper. One of the marked notes could not be found. Witness did not agree that the majority of the documents found indicated that the possessor was more of

a "punter" than anything else. When a man possessed six cards or more relating- to the meeting it seemed as if he was circulating them; ha would not require six for his own use. Witness did not charge defendant with being a bookmaker, but, that he ran a gaming house. Witness would oven suggest that his employees were trained. Witness would not deny that Hefferman did attend races, but suggested his absence would not make any difference, as the staff could "carry on." Numerous betting sheets were perused, Mr O'Leary submitting they were the records of a "punter." The Magistrate pointed out that some of them showed a commission was payable to the possessor, which was quite likely if he was acting as agent for a bookmaker. To his Worship it seemed, from the sheets, that defendant was more likely to be acting as agent for a bookmaker than as a punter. Detective Culloty corroborated the previous witness's and added that he had seen bookmakers frequenting defendant's shop. Mr O'Leary, for the defence, said it was not suggested defendant was a bookmaker. The gist of the section under which defendant was charged was that the occupier was "opening, keeping and using such premises for illegal purposes." Defendant's business was- absolutely legitimate. It would, therefore, take a much stronger case than that made out (in order to get a conviction) than it would require if there was no other business but. gaming carried on. Mr O'Leary sub-' mitted that it must be proved that gaming was habitually carried on. It was not a gaming house even if isolated bets.were proved. In the present case the two bets, at different times, shown by the prosecution could not prove habitual gaming. Furthermore, there was nothing to show that those premises were habitually used for the purposes of gaming. The Magistrate reserved his decision. i,, iwiii ii i