GAOL FOR BOOKMAKER

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22009, 16 January 1935, Page 10

GAOL FOR BOOKMAKER

TERM OF ONE MONTH "FINES NO DETERRENT" RAID MADE BY DETECTIVES A sentence of one month's imprisonment was imposed by Mr.' Wyvern Wilson, S.M., in the Police Court yesterday upon a tobacconist, Douglas Hipkins, aged 40 (Mr. Finlay). who was charged with keeping a common gaining house. The magistrate said accused had already paid £4OO in fines and it was idle and useless to impose punishment that would not prove a deterrent. Accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution was conducted bv Senior-Detective Hall. Evidence was given by Constable D. C. Cleverlev that ho had visited the Commerce Building, in Commerce Street, on December 8 and accused had accepted a 5s bet. On December 24 Constable H. Prestage said he had called and accused had informed him that he would not accept bets from a stranger without an introduction. He had said: "I am not running a betting business." Detective F. J. Brady said he had executed a search \varrant on accused's premises in the company of Detective Sneddon and Detective Stevenson on December 31. The door was forced and inside were accused and four other men. On a desk was a ledger with a page torn out. The page was discovered in the waste-paper basket and had a number of horses' names written on it. Eighty-six double charts, a confirmation book, and a cash box containing £4 14s Id were discovered in the room. Accused had in his possession £122 2s. principally in bank notes, £5 Is 6d in postal notes, £55 18s 6d in cheques, and two double charts. Position in Business Asked whether the money was his. accused said: "Well, you found it in my pockets." Ho had also informed witness that the business was his own, and he was not on wages. While the detectives wore there, the telephone" rang four times, but the receiver was put up when those at the other end became suspicious. Fix'e different men called, but were warned away by accused. One of them approached accused with a £1 note and asked for a bet. Cross-examined by Mr. Finlay, witness said he knew that accused was only a clerk for somebody else and was working for wages. Counsel submitted' that no evidence had been produced showing that accused was carrying on a generalised betting business. There was a strict limitation upon its scope. The evidence went nb further than to raise suspicion, but that was not sufficient. The prosecution had also failed to produce the necessary evidence of localisation. The magistrate said the evidence had been .ample to convince him of the generality and locality of the business. In addition, accused had admitted to the police that the business was his own. He would accordingly be convicted. Financial Punishment Urged Addressing the Court on the question of penajty. Mr. Finlay said the business was a small one. 1 urther, the real wrongdoer in the case was not accused, but somebody else. Accordiugly, counsel submitted, the penalty that would best meet the case was a financial punishment and not imprisonment. Mr. Finlay also asked the magistrate to consider the fact that there was a bill before Parliament seeking an alteration to the Gkiming Amendment Act. . Senior-Detective Hall said the occasion was accused's fourth appearance before the Court. The Magistrate: Men can bet in a legal manner, but there is a nuisance in the community—the common gaming house and the bookmaker. After referring to the fact that accused had already paid £4OO in fines and had admitted the business was his own, the magistrate imposed a sentence of one month's imprisonment.