ILLEGAL BETTING ALLEGED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LV, Issue 16849, 14 May 1918, Page 4

ILLEGAL BETTING ALLEGED.

HAMILTON MEN CHARGED. [bt TELEGRAPH. OWN CORRESPONDENT.] HAMILTON, Monday. The hearing of the charge of using their premises as a common gaming-house made against Frederick Jones and Robert Whitten was commenced to-day. Whitten was also charged with betting with a person whom he knew to be an infant. Senior Sergeant Cassells prosecuted, and Mr. Ostler defended. Mr. Ostler, in opening, claimed that there wag no authority under section 3 of the Gaming Act, under which the search warrant was issued, to seizu documents. The authority was for the seizure only of tables and instruments of unlawful games. Under the Betting Act authority was given for the seizure of lists, cards, etc., relating to betting. The police had seized documents illegally, and should give them up or, at least, should not use them in the case. In using the books the police were committing a breach of the civil rights of his clients. The magistrate read a judgment in a previous case heard in Dunedin, and held that thin put Mr. Ostler's contention out of court.

Thomas Leonard Hunt, farm labourer, 18i years of age, gave evidence to the effect that about Easter ho went to the shop for a bet on the Auckland meeting. He gave Whitten £3. On March 16 he went to the shop again, saw Whitten, and made three bets, amounting to 30s on the Paeroa meeting. He got a first and a second, and later collected his dividend from Whitten. In answer to Mr. Ostler witness said he had been betting with defendants for the past three years. He knew that the defendants backed horses themselves. When he went in to bet he had asked Whitten to put the money on for him with Louglin, and Whitten had agreed. Vere de Vere Hunt, on whose behalf the case was watched by Mr. J. R. Reed, K.C., stated that at the time of the Te Aroha races he saw Jones at the shop, and asked him to secure him a "double" on certain horses. Jones agreed. The witness had previously had a "double" bet with Whitten on the Wellington meeting. In reply to Mr. Ostler, he said that during the past year he might have spent £100 in belting. His salary was £3 a week. He refused to answer various other questions put to him by Mr. Ostler. Jones, ir. evidence, said he had followed racing to some extent, but had never acted as a bookmaker or used his premises for the laying of odds. The entries found by the police were his own bets or money put on for friends. He had never acted as agent for a booki maker.

The case was adjourned until Monday next.