BETTING PROSECUTIONS AT NORTHAMPTON.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 9581, 4 August 1894, Page 2 (Supplement)

BETTING PROSECUTIONS AT NORTHAMPTON.

At Northampton Town Hall a few days ago the Mayor and other borough magistrates were engaged in investigating sumsumonses issued against Messrs. Frail, the lessees of Northampton Racecourse, and Mr. Joe Abrahams, a bookmaker, for alleged offences under the Betting Act. The case excited widespread interest, and the court was filled to its utmost capacity. The Mayor (Mr. Alderman H. E. Randall) was the presiding magistrate, and the other justices adjudicating were Mr. H. Martin (ex-Mayor), Mr. J. Barry, and Mr. G. M. Tebbutt. There were also on the bench at least a dozen other borough magistrates, but merely as spectators. The petty jurybox was . reserved tor the members ot the Northampton Town Council, who may be said to have had a keen concern in the ease, since the Corporation of Northampton are the owners of, the raceconrse, on which, at the April meeting, the offences charged were alleged to have been committed. Charles Simpson Frail and John Ernest Frail, of 52, Maddox-street, _ London, W., was summoned, upon the information. of John Hawke, of Lapford House, New Barnet, described as a member of Lloyds, and honorary . secretary of the National Anti-Gambling League, of No. 7, Adamstreet, Adelpni, London, "for that you, the said Charles Simpson Frail and John Ernest Frail, at the County Borough of Northampton, being the lessees and occupiers of a certain placeto wit, an enclosure, attached or adjacent to the grandstand, known as the reserved enclosure Tattersail's ring, situate on the Northampton freemen's commons or raceground, unlawfully, knowingly, and wilfully did, on April 3, 1894, permit the said - place to be used by certain other persons for the purpose of betting with persons resorting thereto upon certain events and contingencies of and relating to horse races." There was a second summons against Messrs. Frail for a similar offence in . connection with the enclosure known as the 10s ring, and two summonses for alleged offences on April 4. Joe Abrahams, of 32, Aldington Crescent, Shacklewell Lane, Dalston, bookmaker, was summoned, also upon the information of John Hawke, " for that you, the said Joe Abrahams, on April 4, 1894, at the County Borough of Northampton, unlawfully did use a certain place wit, an enclosure attached or adjacent to the grandstand, known as the 10s ring:, situate upon the Northampton freemen's commons or raeeground, for the purpose of making bets with, and receiving money in advance from, persons resorting thereto, as and for the consideration for an assurance, undertaking, promise, or agreement to pay or give thereafter money upon certain events and contingencies of arid relating to horse race?." Mr. Gully, Q.C., and Mr. Reginald Brown appeared for the prosecution, instructed by the solicitors for the AntiGambling League; Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., and Mr. H. C. Richards for Messrs. Frail; and Mr. Alexander Graham for the defendant Abrahams. Mr. Gully, Q.C., in opening the case, declared that the prosecution was not an attack upon horse-racing or upon betting as such. Horse-racing was as lawful as cricket, but what the prosecution contended was that there had been a breach of the Betting Act of 1853, which was passed to prevent mischief arising from certain facilities which existed for betting. Questions of law arose here, and he hoped to satisfy the bench that there were authorities on all fours with the Act on which be intended to rely. Section HI. provided that any person who, being the owner or occupier of any house, office, room, or other place, or a person using the same, shall open, keep, or use the same for the purposes hereinbefore mentioned, or either of them, and any person being the owner or occupier of any house, room, office, or other place shall knowingly and wilfully permit the same to be opened, kept, or used by any other person for the purposes aforesaid or either of them, and any person having: the care or management of or in any manner assisting in conducting the business of any house, office, room, or place opened, kept, or used for the purposes aforesaid, or either of them, shall, on summary- conviction thereof before any two justices of the peace, be liable to forfeit and pay such penalty not exceeding £100, as shall be adjudged by such justices, and may be further adjudged by such justices to pay such costs attending such conviction as to the said justices shall seem reasonable, and on the non-payment of such penalty and costs, or in the first instance, if to the said justices it shall seem fit, :naf be committed to the common gaol or Efouse of Correction, with or without hard labour, for any time not exceeding six calendar months. He submitted it was the duty of the lessees not to allow the places described in the summons to be used for betting, whether in the nature of deposit or without deposit. He described the topography of the locality, which he assumed was known to the members of the bench. (Laughter.) Describing the nature of the offence alleged against the defendant Abrahams, Mr. Gully referred to the appearance of the bookmakers some were in costume, some had banners, and others were standing upon abnormally thick soles. Every variety of device was resorted to by these men to make themHelves conspicuous to the public. They were calling out odds and receiving deposits. This was with the knowledge of the lessees. Evidence was given as to the betting. Mr. Lockwood, in addressing the bench for Messrs. Frail, said Mr. Hawke had the

courage to lay an information, although in the court he had not the courage to go into the witness-box. (Applause.) That conduct might commend itself to the Anti Gambling League, but there was no honest man who would approve of it. (Renewed applause.) This prosecution' aimed at proving thab betting was a degrading and dishonourable pursuit, but the crusade had a champion who was beneath contempt. He appealed to the court not to allow itself to be .* overborne by authorities who had dealt with another set of facts altogether, and his contention was that in the present inquiry the prosecution had failed to prove knowledge or commission. Supposing the Corporation had been charged as owners, the dock would not have been large enough for all the members, but a place would no doubt have been found • for the Mayor. (Laughter.) The whole Corporation might have been "run in" if Mr. Hawkehad had courage • without discretion. \ (Renewed laughter.) Counsel proceeded to argue the points of law raised, and commenting on the evidence, he characterised thab of Mr. Mitchell as the exaggerated statement of * a private detective. There was no more illegality in his (Mr. Lock wood) making a bet with his friend Mr. Gully than there was in Mr. Hawke going into his office in Lloyds' subscription rooms and betting nob on "which horse first passed the post, bub on men's lives and rotten ships. Apart from the- authorities quoted, Messrs. Frail were entitled to an acquittal, because there was no proof of wilful knowledge and acquiescence. ■* i * Mr. Gully having replied on the point of law, . ..v.v The magistrates retired at half-past three to consider their decision. On their return at four o'clock tho Mayor said the magistrates were satisfied from; the evidence that the defendants were on the day named in the charge occupiers of ; the enclosures referred to in the ; summonses. They were also satisfied thab betting went on under such circumstances as to make ;it illegal within the meaning of the Act, as explained by the decisions under it, but the evidence did nob sufficiently satisfy them that tho defendants had knowledge of those oircumstances. For this $ reason they considered the case for the prosecution not made out, and the summonses would, therefore, be dismissed. (Applause in court.) Mr. Gully asked the bench to grant) a case. The Mayor We are advised thab it is very doubtful whether we can grant a case, bub if wo have, the power we are willing to do so. Mr. Gully: Ib will nob be respectful to the bench to proceed now with the i summouses as to April 3. , -Evidence was then called in 'support of the summons against Abrahams, on whose behalf Mr. Graham addressed the bench. After deliberating the Magistrates t fined this defendant 40s and the costs of : the court. ■ . Mr. Graham gave formal notice of appeal, and tendered two. sureties, which the beach intimated their willingness to. accept, r ;,- , „ , ' The proceedings then terminated. ;