PROSECUTION FAILS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22319, 17 January 1936, Page 12

PROSECUTION FAILS

ALLEGED BOOKMAKING TAKING OF ISOLATED BETS Proof of the taking of one or two isolated bets, without other substantial evidence, is not sufficient to convict a defendant charged with carrying on the business of a bookmaker. This point was made in the Police Court yesterday by. Mr. Schramm, and upheld by tho magistrate, Mr. W. R. McKean, when William George Bloomfield, aged 52, was charged. In evidence, Constable Griffiths said he was on "the hill" at Ellerslie racecourse during a race meeting on December 30, for the purpose of detecting breaches of the Gaming Act, and observed defendant iiv conversation with a Maori. It appeared that money changed hands. Witness approached defendant. with whom ho laid a 2s 6(1 bet on Sandy Dix and a similar bet cm London in the Ponsonby Hurdles. Defendant took the bets without question, and approached witness later, stating that witness had won 16s, Sandy Dix having won. Witness laid another 2s Gd bet on Maxown in the tilth race. Mr. Schramm (for defendant): You swear you took three half-crown bets? Witness: Yes. Mr. Schramm: You got 16s from hi in ? Witness: 1 did. Mr. Schramm: I put it to you that 10s was the correct dividend for a five-shilling bet on the winning horse? Witness: Yes. To a, further question by counsel, witness said he did not give defendant 5s as a share in a totalisator ticket on the winning horse. Defendant did not go to tho totalisator, and was in witness' view all tho time. Detective Moore said he searched defendant, but could find no betting material on him, although there were scverM slips of paper in -one of his pockets. There were no markings on them. In a statement, defendant denied bookmaking and said he did not make a payment of 16s to anybody. "At this stage 1 must say I do not consider there is any case to answer," said Mr. Schramm, "and there appears to bo the possibility of some mistake regarding the purpose of the money given by the constable to this man." Even if a couple of bets had actually been take it, defendant was not carrying on the business of a bookmaker within the meaning of the Act. Tho magistrate said it was doubtful whether he could convict, although on the evidence he was satisfied defendant accepted a bet of 5s on the Ponsonby Hurdles, However, it was not a question of "carrying on the business" of a bookmaker, because decisions given showed there must be something more than evidence of isolated bets. The evidence before tho Court showed the taking of bets by defendant, but did not show he was "carrying on the business" of a bookmaker. The information would, therefore, bo dismissed.