POLICE COURT NEWS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 12892, 14 June 1905, Page 7

POLICE COURT NEWS.

LAYING TOTALISATOR ODDS, ' MAGISTRATE withdraws •• • v CONVICTION. : -■ ' the charge DISMISSED. The conviction which was entered by Mr. C C. 'Kettle 'at the Police Court on Monday against IViniett and Grant, a linn of Christchurch bookmakers, for having made two "bets upon the result of two horse races, whereby they agreed to pay Melville Henry Quick a sum of mo:, dependent upon the totalisater. 'Was ■'<■ withdrawn 'by the magistnat* yesterday. The above charge was laid under the first part f){ section 4 of the Gaming anil Lotteries Act. *• Mr. Mays appeared for the prosecution, ami Mr- •'- R. Reod tor the defendants. When the case was called upon yesteiday morning Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., said that. »fter careful consideration, and perusal of the "section of the Act the defendants were charged under, he bad come to the conclusion Hun the latter part of the section did not apply to the offence on which they ■were 'eWrgetl. As he had on Monday considered it "did, he would withdraw the eonH'ktiotu > He.would. however, reopen the vast, as. it had not been finally, dealt with. He therefore 5 adjourned the case until a- ■ quarter past two,' to allow Mr. Mays to piepaw argument on the second part ot the section. .„ j...-.: , ' > After the adjournment. Mr. Mays applied A(> amend the charge to come under the Second part of Section 4, which would read : "Bsniett and Grant not being persons lawfully conducting or employed iin the working of a. lotalisator. did mako a bet with Melville Henry Quick a contract or bargain to pa? money upon a horse race run nt lakapnua', winch said event was determined 'by the working eL the tot*lisator upon the said horse raw.*' He asked the magistrate for a conviction on the evidence as it stood. He. submitted that a contract had been shown. . .'_...,. The. Magistrate said it was impossible that both parties could have agreed upon the terms.' :-....,/.: ... ' ,

n .-.Mr. Mays asked the magistrate it In- intended to .ilisuiis.i to do so without prejudice. " "Mr. Reed admitted tint the magistrate "had the'right to amend, but pointed out tlie .'lateness -of this' amendment. »,-.: The Magistrate said he would not permit tie amendment at such, a late stage of the proceeding:-. Even if ho did grant it. he did not think the evidence established a 'contract.' Hut he would, however, leave it open.' aud would'not definitely say that it . would be dismissed under the second part.' -Mr. Reed asked that the information be dismissed. , ~., . , ' flic Magistrate., in summing up, said the following were the facts: That the defen- "■ dants were charged,' under the first-part of section 4, with two offences. On*the 28th ~of .January a. horse race meeting was held at . Takapuna, ami a totalisator was.run. which was duly grafted and gazetted. The programme included two races—Maiden Plate, and the Zealandia Hand cap. / A horse mimed Golden • blinds was entered for the Plato and Hohoro for the Handicap. The Maiden Plate started at a-quarter to twelve, and was won by Golden Sands, and the Zealandia Handicap was won by Hohoro. The dividend paid Jay, the totalisator on Golden Saucts was £10 16s 6d, and on Hohoro's race £6-10*. Six- minutes before the race was'run' Quick wrote out a telegram, and handed it in to .the officer at the telegraph office at Hamilton. The telegram was addressed to Harnett and Grant, Christ* . church, putting . £10 on Golden .Sands. , The message, however, was not. sent by the authorities until nine minutes past one o'clock, which was after Golden Sands -had won the race, and, therefore the defendants did not receive it until after the race was won. The same applied to the Zcßlsuulia -Handicap. The defendants did not reply. '■On-March 14 defendants cent Quick a 1 letter ? and a cheque"; which was eventually received ■■ by "-Quick".' and the" cheque cashed. He .; behoved it whs the common custom and understanding between bookmakers who laid 1 totalisator odds and persons who wagered on the totalisator odds that if ' the latter >, won the bookmakers' limit was £7 10s.

; On tbec-o facts the Magistrate said. he was ' of opinion that tie race had been run before the proposal 'had-reached the defendants, and whatever acceptance there was no of* > fence-had been-established under the first • part of section 4 of the Gaming' and Lotteries -Act. The case would therefore be dismissed without prejudice to any proceedings that might be taken under, the latter part of the section. .'- ..A HELLABY'S employee ....... CONVICTED. A young man, John James Russell Hunter, who had been employed by Messrs. B. and W. Hellaby, butchers, at their Parne.ll branch, was' charged that he did, between October 9, 1901. and May 31. 1905, with -intent, to defraud, obtain meat to the value . of £26 Is 9d. He was' further charge*! with stealing £62 •7s 2d in money - between the •same dates. ~■.■.,;-.,-..,■ '.:■* ••* <■■.*;<■■'<•■ ... Mr. Mays, appearing for the prosecution, said ft had been the duty of the- accused to take out' moat to customers, and also col- "" lect some of the monthly accounts. During "the months in question he* had been «>b- * tawing"meat for customers who had previously given up dealing from Hellaby's: Accused had then disposed of the .meat on his own account. The £62 7s 2d was made tip 'by small, accounts., accused had collected, but not accounted for. The way he managed 4o obtain the moneys was as follows: — After he had received the accounts from the manager he would cross, out the amount of account rendered. He would then write out, another account without the " account rendered," ho having collected the money and applied it to bis own uses. The accused bad given the Crown every aid in -finding the amounts, etc. .;. ; ; John Payne, branch auditor for R. and ' W. Hellabv, Limited, said it was part of the accused's duty to receive payments on the customers' monthly accounts. When lie. Nad audited the Parnell 'accounts, ho found numerous accounts had been paid and'received by accused, but they'had not been . accounted for. This witness also gave evidence similar to the statement made "by Mr. Mays. ', - »,, ;.■•••; In answer to Mr. Skelton,' the witness said these butcher boys would handle from £20 to £50 in money "at the Parnell branch a month. ~ Detective Miller, said he arrested Hunter ml a,charge of misappropriating £3 6s 2d, and also. told him that the defalcations amounted to £30. Hunter replied that he did not intend to fight, but thought ibis firm would give hire a chance to pay up the amount.. ... Hunter, when formally charged, said: "1 admit everything in the statement is correct." ... ,-.,.- ~ • ■ ■.*•■•■ The Bench committed him to the Supreme Court for sentence. ./.„. CHARITABLE AID BOARD V. THE i ,-,v. PUBLIC TRUSTEE. ',".,. A. most unusual case was heard yesterday, in which the Public Trustee (Mr. Warburton) was defendant, and the Charitable Aid Board the complainant. The case for the. Charitable Aid Board was that, Sarah Southerby. . the deserted and destitute wife of- Samuel Southerby, now dead, bad been maintained in the Costley Home from April, 1901. to August, 1904, at a cost of £88. The Charitable Aid Board asked that the cost of her maintenance should be taken out of the .■ estate. Mr. Clayton > appeared for the Charitable Aid Board, and Mr. Brookfield opposed. John -Strathera. relieving officer, said that Mrs. Southerby was admitted.to the home in April, 1901. where she died m August. 1904. i The Hospital Board claimed 10s a week for her maintenance. At the time of her admission into the home she. ' was- penniless/ >> •■■ " • ■'-' Mr Brookfield stated that Sontherby, in >!. his, will, < dated- July 28, *• 1002, left. 3s weekly for the maintenance of his wife. The-defence depended upon the contention t - that the liability of a husband tinder the Destitute Person* Act was personal, and i;..did not extend to.his executors or adminisv traitors, i-'v ; ;.- ; r,'l' ,-Z"- ■'--■ ;■ .'-.-_"' '. *, '•'•■; ;■;-.; The majristrata tefierred his decision.

MAN THROWN OUT OF OPERA > V HOUSE. Thomas J . Trounsoh, 23 years of age, pleaded guilty to a' second offence of drunkenness, and was fined 10s and costs. He was further charged with assaulting Herbert Hill. ■>■■■■- Herbert Hill, usher..at the Opera House, said the accused was in tlie family circle on he previous night. He made several objectionable remarks while one of the girls was singing. When witness was putting him out, the defendant kicked him several times. A fine of 10s and costs was inflicted. HUSBAND AND WIFE. William Pruter was sentenced to one month's imprisonment for failing to pay 20s a week as ordered by the Court towards the maintenance of his wife. The warrant, however, was suspended for a week, in order to give the husband a chance to comply with the order. GREY LYNN BY-LAW CASES. S. Murray, A. Woods, Roger Lupton. and Thomas .stearic, were fined 5s and costs for allowing horses to wander in Wolselevstreet, Grey Lynn. Ernest Edmunds. * a butcher, was lined 5s and costs for riding on the footpath in Surrey Crescent on May 3. •DRUNKENNESS. Emma Skiventon. a fifth offender, who had been • sentenced to two months' imprisonment'the last time she was up before the Court, was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called upon, on agreeing to go into the Salvation Army Home for six months. A prohibition order was. also issued. Two first offenders were fined 5s and costs. Patrick Small, a second offender, was fined 10s and costs, and a previous offender was lined a like sum.