BETTING CHARGE FAILS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19866, 9 February 1928, Page 12

BETTING CHARGE FAILS.

[A SUCCESSFUL "DOUBLE."

GRAND NATIONAL MEETING.

FAILURE TO PAY ALLEGED.

ACQUITTAL BY A JURY.

A jury failed to convict on a charge of bookmaking preferred in the Supreme Court yesterday against Harry Marks (Mr. Dickson). The indictment referred to bets allegedly made after accused's conviction for bookmaking toward the end of April last. Mr. Justice Blair heard the case and Mr. Hubble conducted the prosecution. William Henry Bonner, a tobacconist, said he had had several bets, which he detailed, with accused, and had.boeri paid when he won, with the exception of an occasion in August last when he took a winning "double" at 5s to £2O on Beau Cavalier and Wharncliffe in the Grand National Steeplechase and Hurdles at Christchurch. The "double" had been taken when Marks had come to witness" tobacconist shop and asked him "what he fancied." Witness had not paid his 5s at the time, but later, and the transaction was then recorded by Marks in a notebook. W T hen witness some time after the races approached accused and asked him when he was going to "weigh in," Marks had replied "when I please," but had never paid. At one subsequent meeting blows had been exchanged. Taking Alleged "Double." Bonner, in reply to Mr. Dickson, denied he had been an "agent" for accused prior to the latter's conviction as a bookmaker last winter. Witness admitted having borrowed money from accused, but said it had all been repaid. Frederick McDermott said he witnessed the "double" transaction in Bonner's shop. Frederick Herbert Beachem detailed a conversation with accused after the Christchurch races, when Marks had admitted that "Bill had struck him for a 'tenner,' " adding that payment would not be made if Bonner continued to worry him for it. Constable Sutherland told the Court how he made bets last April with accused, who was convicted toward the end of that month, Marks being fined £lO for bookmaking. Mr. Dickson: Did he always pay you ? Witness: Yes. He overpaid you once ?—Yes. but 1 gave him buck the surplus. He was congratulating himself on having found an honest client.—He "congratulated me, too. (Laughter.) "Then there were at least two honest men in Auckland at that period," remarked Mr. Dickson, amid renewed laughter. Shortly afterward the Court was again amused when, following upon the translation of an obscure betting record, the Judge remarked, "Oh, I see; so much on one horse and all up, so and so." " Queen Street Bookmakers." Challenging a statement by Detective J. A. Moon, that accused bore the character of a bookmaker and was much seen about the city streets, Mr. Dickson said: "But you see a number of people in -Queen Street without suggesting they are bookmakers ?" * Detective Moon: Quite a number of them are. Mr. Dickson: I often see you in Queen Street, but you would be annoyed if 1 called you a bookmaker. Mr. Dickson submitted for the defence that Marks had done no bookmaking since bis conviction last winter. He had lost bis money in the initial venture, and subsequently had worked for the Temperance and General Assurance Company for £4 7s a week for three months, and then as a labourer at concrete works, where he was now employed. Bonner had been an agent of accused's in his bookmaking days and owed him money. It was a repayment of part of this which had been mistaken for a betting transaction in Aocused gave evidence on these lines, saying that the first intimation he had from Bonner about an alleged winning "double" was when Bonner came to his house about it. 'Witness then emphatically told Bonner that he well knew the 5s was part payment of a debt. Mr. Dickson said there was no proof that accused had been systematically betting since his conviction. He said the case presented by Crown witnesses savoured of collusion. Juries' View ol Law. The Judge, summing up, emphasised the point that in all but one instance the only evidence of alleged bets having been made since his conviction by accused was the word of Bonner, who, as the bettor, was in the eyes_ of the law, an accomplice. Still, his evidence, especially where corroborated, might bo accepted. On the other hand, the evidence as to accused's continuous employment was a point in Marks' favour, although admittedly a man might be anything and a bookmaker as well. It sometimes happened that juries regarded the gaming laws in an indifferent light, because they themselves liked a "little on the tote," but it was their duty to return a finding in the light of the law as it stood and as he expounded it. After a retirement of three-quarters or an hour the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.