WAR ON THE BOOKMAKER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17780, 13 May 1921, Page 5

WAR ON THE BOOKMAKER.

WILLIAM WHITTA'S CASE. JUDGE HERDMAN'S COMMENTS. The determination of the Government to abolish the bookmaker was emphasised by Mr. Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court in Christchurch this week, when sentencing William Vivian Whitta to a term of imprisonment. His Honor, addressing Whitta, said the present was not the only time he had been before the Court—not the Supreme Court—in connection with offences relating to gambling. As far back as 1897 he had been convicted of trespassing on a racecourse, also in 1898, 1899, and 1900. From that date onward various charges had been laid against him, and he had been convicted on various occasions- In 1912 Whitta was fined £100 for keeping a gaming house; and in 1915 he was convicted of publishing race cards. The legislature had made up its mind that bookmaking was a serious source of mischief and evil in the community,. and had deliberately brought bookmaking within the category of offences which render those guilty of them liable to imprisonment. Experience had shown that it iwas futile to impose fines in such cases, and the sooner bookmakers understood that the offence was one punishable by imprisonment the better. It was clear from the evidence given during the trial, and that of prisoner's son, that, through the medium of an elaborate and cleverly-devised system, "prisoner had carried on the business of bookmaker throughout New Zealand. Prisoner knew this, and had knowledge of the state of the law, and had made up his mind to defy it. In those circumstances His Honor said that it was impossible for him to view the case leniently, and he would sentence prisoner to a term of imprisonment. He would take into consideration prisoner's age and that this was the first case that a jury had made up its mind about. The maximum penalty was two years; having regard to prisoner's age, he would sentence him to six months' imprisonment with hard labour: and under the provisions of the Crimes Act he would be ordered to pay bIW 16s lOd, the costs of the prosecution.