CONVICTIONS UPHELD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19156, 23 October 1925, Page 15

CONVICTIONS UPHELD.

UNSUCCESSFUL APPEALS.

SENTENCE FOR BOOKMAKING

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

An appeal by "William George Brown (Mr. Luxford) against- conviction for laying totalisator odds was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Herdman. Ihe appeal was based on the ground that there was no evidence to support the conviction, and that the magistrate admitted improper evidence of bets alleged to have been made by appellant before and after the date of the offence on which he was charged. It was stated that Brown was arrested on a charge of carrying on business as a bookmaker. On being charged he claimed the right to be tried before jury. Before that could be done eight fresh charges of laying totalisator odds were brought against him. Tht magistrate allowed one charge to be taken and admitted evidence of the other charges to prove the one that had been taken. The police abandoned the charge of bookmaking. Appellant claimed that 'the magistrate had no jurisdiction to allow summary charges to be substituted for a charge that could be tried before a Jury, and he therefore moved for prohibition. Ihe Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, who heard the motion, held that ho had no power to prohibit . the magistrate. from proceeding on the charges of betting and laying totalisator odds, as they were separate from that of carrying on business as a bookmaker. The magistrate subsequently entered a conviction on the charge he had inquired into, and imposed a sentence of 32 days' imprisonment, It was against this decision that the appeal was made. Mr. Meredith for the Crown contended the evidence tendered in the Police Court relating to various betting transactions by appellant was admissible. In any case the evidence regarding the one transaction for which appellant was convicted was sufficient to establish the conviction. Constable Craigie said ho made bets with appellant at totalisator odds on various occasions, including one on December 26, the date mentioned in the charge. Detective Meiklejohn said that a pocketbook found in Brown's possession contained entries that obviously referred to bets made with various persons. Senior-Detective Ward said he knew appellant as a bookmaker who laid totalisator odds. He was convicted and fined in June, 1924, for carrying on the business of a bookmaker. No evidence was called for the defence. Mr. Luxford quoted numerous authorities with the obiect of showing that the evidence called to pro-re system was inadmissible. If the evidence were not admissible he contended that a prima lncie case had not been made out against appellant. His Honor held that the evidence was properly admitted by the magistrate. Apart "from that evidence, however he considered a prima facie case had been established. The appeal was dismissed, with £5 5s costs and witnesses' expenses.

MISTAKEN IDENTITY PLEA. COURT UPHOLDS SENTENCE. Mistaken identity was the ground of an appeal bv Frederick 'William Nicolis, carter (Mr. "Osburne-Lilly), against conviction for indecent exposure. Nicolis was charged with two offences, one charge being dismissed. On the other he was convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. The chief witnesses against him were two girls employed in city offices, who identified him as* the man. Evidence for the defence was given by appellant and some of his fellow-employees with the object of showing _ that he could not have been in tho vicinity at the time of the offences. His Honor said he was satisfied the -'case was pyoved beyond all doubt on the evidence of the two girls- The appeal was dismissed, with costs £5 ss.