BETTING CARD LAW SUIT

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 16502, 30 March 1917, Page 7

BETTING CARD LAW SUIT

•- «——|jj alleged alteration. CLAIM 'FOR RECOVERY - OF* £60. : Pp As action involving an alleged alteration ® of a betting card—which amounted .to an S|P?order upon a totalisator proprietary—was fffcp- partly heard by Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., Jv' in the Magistrate's Court yesterday after§o noon. Frederick George O'Hanlon, better |p|s known by the surname of Hanlon (Mr. ""a- H. H. Ostler), sued Blomfield and Comp pany (Messrs. J. R. Reed, K.C., and P. 0% McVeagh). who conduct the totalisat-or operations at country race meetings in the %• Auckland district, to recover £60, which X," plaintiff claims to have been overcharged 3,'; to him upon a totalisat-or investment at t&i, the Hamilton races on February 17 1 i-v -account of an alteration that, he alleges was made in the order mado by him fn'\ against a . redit note. |-'. Plaintiff, who is a poultry-farmer and 5- ; horse-owner, was present at the races on $ February 16 and won on the totalisator p a sum of £241. He took from the §-- totalisatiir cement £41 in cash and % an 1 0.1. . ir, r £200. Afterwards be exif changed the 1.0 f. for a book of betting V cards ' which entitled him to draw for the . purpose of investments on the second day - against the balance due to him. Up to ' this point the facts are undisputed. It is in regard to the occurrences of the second day of racing that the parties are m issue. Plaintiff alleges that in the , Taupiri Hack Handicap he presented one of the betting-cards at the totalisator house, made out for an investment of £12 upon Bowler, the favourite—Bowler il may be Stated ' did not win the race! He further asserts that when he applied at Blomfic-.d and Company's office in Auckland, on the following Tuesday, for 8 statement of his account, he found that onlr £108 was shown as being due to him instead of the £168 that he had reckoned upon receiving. he account showed the investment upon Bowler as one of £72 which plaintiff disputes, claiming that his order bad been for a wager of £12. When, the card was produced, it. was found to bear the figures "72," but plaintiff alleged that some person had altered the first figure since it. left his hands on the racecourse. He accordingly sues the totalisator proprietary for the difference of £60 In opening the case, Mr. Ostler asked that it should be distinctly understood that Iv made no charge against Mr. O. F. Mark, the manager 'of the totalisator ' He did not believe that Mr. Mark had had anything to do with the alteration. Further, Mr. Mark had convinced him that the whole £72 had been put on the totalisator. The alteration must have been made before the card reached Mr. Mark's hands.

Plaintiff gave evidence at considerable length. In cross-examination by Mr. Reed, he admitted that ho had been requested by the Auckland Racing Club not to appear upon its course, and also that he was an undischarged bankrupt. Ho had charge of the horse Hiero, which was racing for an owner registered by the New Zealand Racing Conference under the assumed nome of Mr. W. J. Twcodie.' His own registered assumed name was "Mr. Stent." Replying to further questions, the. witness asserted that since he saw the card at Blomfield and Co.'s office the stroke of the "7," which he alleged had been added after he passed it into the totalisatorhouso, had been made heavier and more pronounced. When pressed by the magistrate on the point, however,* he declined to swear to it positively. , In a letter from plaintiff's counsel, which was read in Court, it was stated that the existence of the figures "12 " on the betting-card could he proved by the evidence of two witnesses. Plaintiff, in his cross-examination, would not swear that any person other than his brother—to whom ho had shown it in front of the totalisator-honse seen the card in its original form. Mr. Rteed j pressed the cross-examination very rigidly, l and finally asked the Court to allow him ! tii postpone his further questioning of the I witness till this morning, in order that the i brother might be examined directly afterwards upon some points, the purport of which was not disclosed. An adjournment was made accordingly.