BETTING-CARD LAWSUIT

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 16503, 31 March 1917, Page 9

BETTING-CARD LAWSUIT

• EVIDENCE FOR PLAINTIFF. |; -* CLOSE CROSS-EXAMINATION. W, A considerable part of yesterday's sitI " ting of the Magistrate's Court was taken | ,ip with tests outside the ordinary routine p- of the examination of witnesses— of accuracy in observation and of credibility. The case was that of [<'. (}. O'Hanlcm v. Blomfield and Company, totalizator managers, in which the plaintiff claims £60 which he alleges was over-charged against l him upon .1 lotfllisator investment at the Hamilton races on February 17, through an alteration of figures from 12 to 72, which I:*' alleges was made in a betting, card lodged by him in harking the horse Bowler. Plaintiff was subjected to further severe crwf-ei.iiiuiiiti.m In Mr. Reed, in t^ e course of «hi' li In- was required to gi Ve demerit rati.. ~u.-.iug the Court furnilure to illustrate- -of the position i n which l,e st-cd when showing his brother the original f-rm ~f the card a he p^ ged j up th,. >». e winch led to the I J;" 1 "' He examined by his wunael Mr. i.).-: ;. plaintiff said *' .■ »i i , '»"'•' > '-"' ' -l„c) h, ~ -Hl .the bank-1 Chained to-k »i.., 16 ,' Ml hC ™ das-1 that" hi- discharge h 'j" , 17 , ."»" a e i> - ' pnrird. hut ilia- when the kpnlication'for" », „ ... |, •* the application lor t r ' v * hem t l "' late Mr i.'.'.'i' -""'• ,v " a * ill, and witness took 110 ." ■.-•"■ >lepa in the matter. .*/*'», when William Patrick O'Hanlon "'.other ot the plaintiff, and a carrier at <HUn<<>, was examined, he w a , questioned very strictly about the marking on the ti-kvt when it v,.,> ,„..„„ to "him before it, h.-dgment 11, , evidence was that i' then showed !he figures £12 Ani..n.->t other tests of hi- niemorv was cue sii'SeMcd by .Mr . Kettle. S.M., 'which Mr. M,\.-a;h j.H-.ilarlv described as i*ranij> •■:! of th„ casket 'scone in "Romeo I and Juliet. ' The »ilne>s was sent out f l r ""'t -U..1 plaintiff. at the request of the m.i-M,.jt.\ drew up f llllr copies of the Man;.aid as it mm- stands. These were Jam nut pii 'be ,-ail of the witness-box •ami inn disputed raid placed with them. 111,1 v.-.tnoss was a-ked to ,hoose from them the card he saw at the racewurgs. Ait. stooping over them for some time. '"' tat, ' *■****« he could not swear that it £* ,-muiust the cards displayed. Mr. Heed aI TO ~hed him with questions as to t'-e wnntitt of ~ther racing transactions, Hi » test .I memory. Other witnesses were called to testify l to plaintiff's good reputation, and others,; again, as experts in handwriting. ' i Opening the case for tho defendants, Mr.! Mc\ eagh undertook to prove by evidence that when the disputed ticket was handed m at the totalisator-huu>e, the official who received it showed it to one of his colleagues, and asked whether the figures on M were 12 or 72 ; that the man who was consulted declared it to be 72; that it was seen by Mr. I'. F. Mark, manager of the totalizator, Messrs. Manning and Sanmii. officials of the racing dub, and Mr. H. R. Mackenzie, chairman of the Manukau County Council, all of whom agreed that it was 72 and it was entered in tho commission hook accordingly. Mr. Kettle, S.M., pointed out that the proceedings amounted to a charge of forgery against some person unknown in the totahsator office. Mr. MeVeagh remarked thati there was no getting away from that Putting '. euphemisms aside, the imputation was that someone altered the ticket. In order , to succeed, the plaintiff must pin his faith to the suggestion that the ticket was de- ' liberately altered a very short time after it had been put in, 0 else surrender his case altogether. As against the probability . of that, he pointed out that attention had' been markedly called to the ticket by the' scrutiny in the totalisator-house, and that anyone who attempted fraud would know ' tint Mr. Mark, who would have the re-,! vision of the betting accounts, had had ids attention riveted upon the matter. ' Was it at all credible, in these circum-' ; stances, that anyone would risk lending himself to what would be a wioked and ; ' deliberate act of fraud? Mr. McVeaghj further stated that the disputed tickV i had been examined under the microscope, • and it would be demonstrated by experts , in matters of colour that the vertical and ; horizontal portions of the "7" were of '. exactly the same shade of colour, while no sign of any junction between them could , ! be discerned. ' ' Charles Freeman Mark was giving evi-1 I deuce as to the methods of the totahsator- !! house in regard to commission betting ' when the case was adjourned until this, ' morning. : ,