CONVICTION QUASHED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LV, Issue 16850, 15 May 1918, Page 8

CONVICTION QUASHED.

A BOOKMAKER'S CASE. EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT. An appeal against a decision of Mr. F. V. Frazer, S.M., convicting Walter Preston on a charge of illegal betting, was heard by Mr. Justice Cooper in the Supreme Court yesterday. Preston was before the magistrate on February 8 last, charged that being a, bookmaker he did bet on the Takapuna racecourse on January 26. " The magistrate convicted him and imposed a sentence of two months' imprisonment, without the option of a fine. Against this decision appeal was now made, on the ground that the determination of the magistrate was against the weight of evidence. Mr. W. E. Hackett appeared for the appellant, and Mr. Selwyn Mays for the respondent, Detective-Sergeant Hammond. > In the opening stage of the case His Honor pointed out that the respondent must, to support the conviction, establish that the appellant was a. bookmaker. Mr. Hackett admitted that Ms client had been previously convicted and imprisoned for three months for being a bookmaker, but said he still denied'that he was so. Detective-Sergeant Hammond gave evidence that at the Takapuna racecourse witness saw ten or a dozen persons go up to Preston. Immediately the second race started, witness and McLeUan, the racing club's detective, approached Preston from opposite sides, reston sat down on the bank and put his left hand into his left-hand coat pocket. Witness told him he would have to leave the course, and led him away. After walking about ISyds he took his hand from the coat pocket and put it into his left-hand trousers pocket. Later, be took his clenched fist out of his pocket and threw away something, which witness subsequently picked up, and found to be a betting slip. On being taken to the stewards stand, Preston turned out his &£ 11' were found *° contain Ml 15s6d. On the slip were the names oi four horses that ran in the second race with pencilled initials and amounts, which witness interpreted as memos, of bets Preston denied that the slip was his ' In cross-examination, witness admitted that Preston s gestures would have been consistent with the idea that he was refusing beta tendered to. him. Preston's racebook did not contain any entries as to results of races. Witness did not accept the invitation given by Preston to search him, and could not say whether or not Preston had a lead-pencil in his possession Witness had not compared the handwriting on the slip with Preston's known writing. omuku James McLellan, racecourse detective to the Takapuna Jockey Club, swore that he saw Preston appear to take something offered by those who approached him and put it into his right-hand coat pocket.' Witness also saw him make a note on a piece of paper. ♦u^?™ 0 * 8 ,. the appellant was a denial that Preston did any betting on the racecourse. It was alleged that Preston went to the course for the purpose of backing a i-Kft-se named Canzonet, which was to ran m a race later in the day, and for this purpose he took with him £40. Desiring as one who had previously been convicted as a bookmaker, to be as inconspicuous as possible, he went te the most secluded part of the course he could find. While there he was approached by four or five persons, who had previously known him as a bookmaker, and who wanted to make bets with him, bat. in each case he refused. He also denied that he made any memo, during the day, or that he had either pen or pencil with him Further, he denied that the slip picked up by the detective was his, or in ms handwriting, and also denied that he had any-slip In his hand when in the grin of the detectives. s v Asked by the Court to account for the ! production of £5 13a 6d from one of his pockets, Preston was at first unable to explain it but, in answer 0 his counsel, he said that on the previous night and ' on the morning of the races he was playing pool for stakes that were paid in silver. His Honor said the circumstances were highly suspicious, but the suspicion did not reach the degree of comparative certainty which would justify the conclusion that actual betting had taken place. He did not pretend to be satisfied with the defendant's evidence, but there was not sufficient evidence to show with certainty that bets were made. The case was, in His Honor's opinion, one which called for further inquiry, but on the present evidence he would allow the appeal, and order the information in the Court below tO ( be dismissed without prejudice. "l i- ave had a narrow escape," remarked His Honor, directing himself to ireston, and I recommend you to avoid racecourses for the future."