Ex-Bookmaker’s Appeal Fails

Manawatu Times, Volume 66, Issue 102, 1 May 1941, Page 8

Ex-Bookmaker’s Appeal Fails

SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT STANDS Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, April 30. “All I’m concerned with is that the law says that bookmaking is a prohibited business,” said the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) in tho Supreme Court at Wellington yesterday when dis missing an appeal by Charles Joseph Williams against a sentence of six months’ imprisonment imposed on him by Mr. A. M. Goulding, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court, Lower Hutt, on January 30, for carrying on the business of bookmaking. Mr. R. Hardie Boys, who appeared for prisoner, said it was not disputed that in ordinary circumstances such a sentence would have been justified, but in the particular circumstances the sentence had been particularly severe, as on eight previous occasions prisoner had i been heavily fiued. On the salutory sentence of a £2OO fine being imposed on him in August, 1939, Williams had given up the business of bookmaking, and from that time till Christmas last he did no bookmaking, but had become what was known as a punter. I “I have always said that it is not creditable to the administration of justice that a prohibited business should be carried on,” the Chief Justice said, i “What are lines but a licence fee to carry on an illegal business?” | Mr. Boys: When this man gave up business as a bookmaker he started as a punter. His Honour: Was ho able to get on the course? Mr. Boys: No; for the four days of the Christchurch meeting he operated outside the course and, in his wife’s name, invested £I4BO on the totalisator, and in two days at the trotting meeting invested £320 in ■wagers. His Honour: It matters not what the law may be—l have to administer it. | It is contrary to the wellbeing of the ytate that people should ignore the law. Mr. Boys said that being compelled to remain outside the course had brought Williams into contact with outcasts with whom ho took bets. Ho had been sentenced as if he had carried on in the sarao way as when ho had engaged a large staff. His Honour: There is only one way of stopping bookmaking and that is by imprisonment. »So long as they are only fined they regard it merely as a licence fee for carrying on tho business. Prisoner’s Evidence. Giving evidence ou his own behalf, Williams said that ho was 41 years of age and was a married man with two children. Since being lined £2OO ho hud disposed of his business as a. bookmaker. He produced an account with the Canterbury Jockey Club showiug that he had made investments extemiing over four days amounting to about £ISOO. Ho also" produced an account with the Metropolitan Trotting Club showing investments made on the totalisator on November 32 and 14 last. Over the months from August lo December he had invested about £250 ou each race day. The betting lie did at Trentham was with people who were prohibited I from going on the course. Cross-examined by Mr. W. R. Birks,

who appeared for the Crown, Williams said he gave up his bookmaking business at Palmerston North at the end of July, 1940. He admitted that he was accepting bets on every race on each of three days at Trentham. His average betting would be about £ls on each race. His Honour: How much did you get for your business at Palmerston Northt ■Williams: £2OOO. In cash?—Yes. You have been fined heavily time and again. Why did you not give up bpokmaking long before?—Because 1 had a wife and family to support. “It is perfectly plain,” said tho Chief Justice, “that this Court should not and cannot interfere with the sentence. The magistrate could not in this case, with due regard for the admini» tration of justice, do other than sentence this man to imprisonment. H« has been deliberately flouting the law for years. The appeal will be di» missed, with seven guineas costs.”