BETS WITH POLICE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22726, 12 May 1937, Page 16

BETS WITH POLICE

BOOKMAKER CHARGED FINE OF £IOO IMPOSED Charged with carrying on business as a bookmaker, James Henry Rogers was fined £IOO, in default three months' imprisonment, when he appeared before Mr. W. 11. McKean, S.M., in the Police Court yesterday. Detective-Sergeant McHugh prosecuted, and Mr. North appeared for accused, who pleaded guilty to the chafrge. Detective-Sergeant McHugli said Rogers had been plying his illegal calling for some time past. The police kept accused under observation on May 1. They had no difficulty in making bets with him, and he fas noticed moving about a hotel making bets with other people and entering them in his notebook. Again on May 8 further bets were made by the police. Mr. McHugh said that accused was arrested on warrant by two detectives on Saturday afternoon, and eight bettin"' slips and a notebook, showing that he had laid six doubles to the value of £2 15s, were found in his possession. " Ho also had a double chart and a book showing a list of people with whom he had been betting," said Mr. McHugh. " There were 235 names on the list, and at one time he had outstanding accounts amounting to £615 13s. There were also accounts showing that this man is in a very large way of business, both as a straight-out bettor and a laver of doubles." " This man has been caught bookmaking, but so far as his _ personal reputation is concerned, it is good, said Mr. North. Counsel added that accused a last conviction wns in 1932, nnd as the extent of his operations, the detectives mental arithmetic might not be accurate, as a number of the names in bis notebook appeared more than once. "I do not doubt that this man is honest," said the magistrate. "He would not be in a large way of business if he were dishonest, but he has been carrying on this business, and apparently no other business, for quite a number of vears. He has four previous convictions and has managed to escape being convicted for four years. "I ought to take a more serious view, buf I don't propose to inflict the maximum penalty," added the magistrate, who then fixed the fine at £IOO.