FINED £l50

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 3 February 1931, Page 6

FINED £lso

FOR BETTING IN STREETS MAGISTRATE’S DECISION IN THE MAXWELL CASE “AN EASY AND COMFORTABLE LIVING” At tlie Magistrate's Court tiiis morning Mr T. E. Alaunsell, S.M., gave his reserved decision in the case against Maurice Vivian Richard Stilling .Maxwell who was charged with frequenting (1) Bridge street, and (2) Trafalgar street on or about 12th August, 1930, and on divers dates between that dale and 21st January, 1391, for the purposes of betting. In giving his decision the Magistrate said: “Defendant is charged .upon two informations, with frequenting Bridge street and Trafalgar street for the purpose of betting. Evidence was tendered by the police that defendant is known to them by repute to be a bookmaker. This evidence was objected to. I think, however, that it was admissible. It'would, 1 think, be permissible for a witness to state that a person was known among the community as a tailor or plumber without being able to support the statement with evidence that the witness is personally aware that he has held himself out as pursuing such a calling or has witnessed his carrying on of such calling. The only difference, in my opinion, is that, without such supporting testimony, it would be more easily rebutted. The objection, therefore, goes to the weight and not the admissibility of the evidence. That is of no moment in this case as the evidence of repute is uncoiftradicted. It is not necessary upon these charges to prove that defendant is a bookmaker, - but if that fact is established it is relevant and material. Two ingredients have to be proved, viz. (a) that the defendant has frequented the streets : and (b) that it was for the purpose of betting. No actual betting need lie proved if the intent is proved. Quirko v. Davidson (1923 N.Z.L.R. 546). There is abundant evidence of “frequenting and the substantial question is whether the purpose of betting has been proved. In Conrick v. Johnston (22 N.Z.L.R. 704) there was evidence of the following facts (a) the man was known as a bookmaker and followed that occupation (li) he was generally to be found about a certain hotel in a certain street; (c) he was seen for two hours that day frequenting the street in and about this hotel by two constables; (d) one of the constables had sworn to seeing him distributing race cards (e) races were taking place at a certain town at the time; (f) he was seen speaking and receiving silver; (g) he was seen speaking to two men and they all went into the hotel; they were seen going up the side entrance and as he came away from the men he was observed putting his hand into his trouser’s pocket as if convoying something to the pocket. Stout C. J. held this was sufficient evidence to justify a conviction. ‘•‘ln this case facts have been sworn to on almost identical lines although the evidence of money passing is slight. In some respects the evidence was stronger than in the case cited as it indicated a systematic practice over a lengthy period. The frequenting was invariably contemporaneous with the dates of important racing fixtures and defendant’s demeanour upon the approach of the police was of a furtive nature, but only so on race days. He was seen frequently making notes in a pocket book similar to that found on him when arrested. All the leaves apparently containing notes had been cut out, leaving the note book void of any notes at all.. In addition to all this accused after arrest upon being told the nature of the charge against him said : “They license the electrical machine why not license the human machine.” That is open only to the construction of a tacit admission of the truth of the charges. 11l

my opinion, the charges have been proved and defendant must be convicted.”

FINE OF £75 ON EAGII CHARGE

Mr \V. Carol Harley, who appeared in lieu of Mr S. 11. Moynagh, for defendant, mentioned that the charges were of a minimum nature. If the police had willed for a maximum they would have charged the defendant with bookmaking. Senior Sergeant W. J. Butler said the police did not regard if in that light, lie considered that the practice indulged in by defendant was one of the worst forms of boqkmaking as he jeopaidised the premises in town which he visited for the purposes of betting. It was “touting” for bets, and not as if he had conducted the business on his own premises. In imposing fines of £75 on each charge the magistrate said defendant's clients probably considered him a public, institution, but those who patronised him were foolish enough not to see that they were providing him with an easy and comfortable living, not calling for any sweat of the brow. “It is not a case of a man having a trade and carrying on this as sideline,” he concluded. Costs amounted to £2 6s. Security for appeal was fixed at £Bo on each charge.

The hearing of similar charges against Harry McNabb and James A. Anderson, was adjourned on the application, of Mr Harley, till Friday at 10 a.m. Rail was allowed self in £SO and one surety of £SO for each defendant.