ALLEGED “TOTE” BETTING.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1802, 19 September 1906, Page 21

ALLEGED “TOTE” BETTING.

CHARGES AGAINST A BOOKMAKER. AN ALLEGED CONSPIRACY. At the Magistrate’s Court on S©pt. 14 before Mr W. G. Riddel, S.M., William Scott, a Wellington bookmaker, was the defendant on three charges:— (1) That, on August 14th, at Riccarton, he entered into a bet upon the result of a certain horse-raoe, namely th© Trial Hurdles, whereby he agreed to pay Percy Henry Brierly, the other party to the bet, a sum of money the amount of which should be dependent upon the result of the working of the totalisator, if a certain horde called Prospector should win the race. (2) That he made a similar bet on the same date with the same party upon tlie Hack Hurdles, Gazeley to win. (3) That he made a similar bet on the same date with, the same party upon the Jumpers’ Flat Raoe, Shrapnel to win. Chief Detective McGrath prosecuted, and Air Wilford appeared for the defence. A plea of not guilty was entered in each charge. The third charge was taken first, Mr Wilford having applied that each should be taken separately.

HOW THE BETS WERE MADE. Valentin© Grelis, clerk, examined by Mr McGrath, said he had been in defendant’s employ as clerk and agent. Was at the Grand National meeting at Christchurch on August 14th on defendant’s business. Had no instructions about odds other than that M men paid cash on the course they were to be paid at the rate 'of £lO for the first horse and £5 for second horse. What odds were you to give?—Total isator odds.

Clients who did not pay carfh, liow were they to be paid ?—I had no instructions, but- understood the odds ivere to be £7 10s for first horse and £2 10s for fitecond. These were totalisator odds. Mr McGrath asked what transactions witness had with Brierly on the date named ?

S.~ Mr Wilford objected ; questions must do confined to the issue in toe one charge only. His Worship admitted the question, ruling that the evidence would lie in order as disclosing a system. Witness went on to describe .bets made with Brierly by him. Brierly put £2O on Kaihu and £3O on Prospector. There was no agreement as to how he was to be paid if the horses won. There was ail understanding that ho was to be paid “tot©” odds on the £7 10s limit. Brierly put. £lO on Lucky Star in the Tally Ho Plate Steeplechase. That horse did not win. the next transaction was a £3O bee on Shrapnel, which won, paying £2 0s 6d dividend. After that Brierly put £2O on Narcissus in the Enfield Steeplechase. Narcissus lost. Thought Biueriy also had £2O on Togo's and £2O on Gaze ley. The latter won, paying £8 2s 6d on the machine. None of these //ere cash bets. Witness prepared an account of the day’s ti an suctions and gave it to defendant. Account produced was the one. It wad inade out on the basis of “bote” odds, iho balance due to Brierly on the account was £l2O. Gross-examined by Mr Wilford, witness said he had no instructions from Scott to inform Brierly what limit lie had to he paid. Had Gazeley paid £IOO dividend ho would not have made-out a sheet for Brierly elbowing him entitled to £99 for each £1 invested. Nor, had Gaze ley paid £ll, would Brierly have berni credited with £lO. If Gazeley had paid £7 15s the bettor would , not have been credited with so many times that amount. If a man paid £i cash he would get £8 10s for a win, and if he did not pay he would get £b 10s for a win Had*no conversation with Brierly as to what odds he was getting. Knew that particular arrangements were made with particular clients as to particular limits. Knew of no arrangement between Scott and Brierly. He assumed tho (usual practice was being carried out. Wrote to defendant through Ins •solicitors before this case came on, asking £lO a day for eigh l : days’ services. Is that all?—Yes, that’s all. SOME POINTED QUESTIONS.

Do you know Pony Fred?—They call me that. Did you ask a man to come in. with you on the Christchurch races to take Scott down?—No, sir. It’s a lie! Did you write down wagers of £3O and £4O after races were over?—No. Did you tell Scott that Brierly had backed a horse called Blackfriar on the last day of the races?—Yes, when the race was over. Do you remember the dividend on Blackfriar?—l think it was £35. Did you say tho wager was made in the telegraph office? —No. Did you put that bet in some book you were keeping, sticking it between two other beta to try and make it look as though it was laid before the race?— No. sir. Did you try to swindle Scott? —I did not, sir. Did you hear that Brierly said lie had won hundreds of pounds from Soott over this meeting?—No. I knew he went to a lawyer. Did you and Brierly conspire to swindle Scott? —No. Do you know that when I showed the lawyer the figures you and Brierly prepared he would have nothing to do with tho case? —I know Scott had the books for two weeks, and could have altered them in that time. I could have altered them in two minutes. Re-examined: Defendant did betting other than at “tote” odds. If a man backed a horse outright he would know tho price at the time. Brierly mentioned no odds in any of these transactions. Believed cheque produced (in favour of Brierly) was in Scott’s handwriting. THE MAN WHO BET. Percy Henry Brierly, contractor, said that on the date named in tho charges he -was at Riccarton course. Had done betting business with Scott, for whom last witness acted at Riccarton. He corroborated the evidence of Grelis as to the bets made with him. Witness always bet on the £7 10s and £2 10s limit. Such bets were based on “tote” odds. The £lO limit meant that if a horse paid £IOO, the better would only get £9 for his £l. Several bookmakers, including Scott and fTfs agent, came and asked witness to give him a turn. There was a perfect understanding with

all of them that the odds were to be decided by the tetnlmtor dividends. Received account, produced, on the day after the races (August 15th), and defendant gave him a cheque for £l2O 15s, produced, in settlement. Did not present the cheque for payment for a fortnight. When h© did so it was returned marked “ Payment stopped.” Had not been paid. Defendant bad! given him no explanation. Had had other bets than at “ tote ” odds with Scott. Had. no similar bets with him to those that took place at Christchurch on August 14th. WAS THERE A CONSPIRACY? Mr Wilford: Did you make a contract or bargain with Scott to pay o« receive money upon an event to be determined by the res pit of the working of the totalisator on a certain horserace, the Jumpers’ Elat Race, to be rim at Riccarton on 14th ? Mr McGrath said that was for his Worship to decide. He objected to the question. Mr WiLford said he wanted to know if witness made a, specific bargain. Witness said he did not. Such & thing a.s a contract in betting was unknown. Soott came to him, and demanded his betting. There was always an understanding. Did you have a contract that you were to be paid “ tote" odds on this race ?—There was an understanding that I was to get “ tote ” odds. Who came to that understanding?—« I as a bettor, Scott as the layer. Did you take the bet on this Shrapnel race at “tote” odds?—lt was understood to be “ tot© ” odds. Did Grelis get you to go to Christchurch? —What do you mean? Did you take his ticket?—l can’t understand you putting such a question. Did you go down by th© same steamer, and in the same berth? —Yes. Greliis bought by ticket through a misunderstanding. Was it arranged on your journey to Riccavton that Grelis should pay your expenses?—No. Poor Grelis! Pay my expenses indeed! Did Grelis ask you to oome to Christchurch with him, and say that you and he could work a nice thing on Scott?—■ No. Are you a contractor? —Yes. Are vou in partnership with anyone? —No. Not with Grelis? —No. What sort of contractor are you?— A road contractor. How long since you did any work?— About five months ago, in Auckland. And since then?—l have been living on my own money. Did you tell anybody that you had an arrangement with Grelis bo “ takb Soott down ” ? —Certainly not. Did Scott tell you wliat odds you. were getting?—The understanding was “ tote ” odds. Do you mean that, when nothing is said, “ tote ” odds are meant ? —Unless it’s a straight-out price, or a double. By “ tote ” rates do you mean “ tote” rates with a limit?—Yes. Then does any bookmaker pay the actual “tote” odds? —I get £7 10s and £2 10s limit. Then you don’t get full “ tote ” odds? —No. As far as witness could remember, the 14th was the first day of the Grand National. He received the statement from Scott before the next day’s races. Did not know whose writing ifc was in. “Could not say whose writing was on the cheque produced. It was given him by defendant. Re-examined: The understanding h© referred to applied to all the betting he did at Riccarton. In straight-out betting a ticket was given to the bettor showing the odds. In “ tote ” odds betting no ticket was given, the bettor just mentioning the horse. That was what h© did on th© date named. WHAT ARE “TOTE” ODDS? Mr Wilford, who did not call any witnesses, addressed the Court for the defence. He asked what “ making fnd entering into a bet” was? The wording of section 4 of the Gaming Act showed that both “making” and “ entering into ” a bet were necessary before an offence was committed. Any person who made a bet was not liable under the clause unless it was dependent upon the result of the working of the totalisator. The clause was inserted to protect the State’s rights in th© totalisator. What, again, were “ tote ” odds? If a man invested £1 with a bookmaker on a horse that paid a £SO dividend on the machine, and if that man only received £7 10s, could he be said to be getting “tote” odds? If a wager was not controlled by the dividend that the totalisator worked out, could it be said that the bettor was receiving “tote” odds? This closed the case, Mr Wilford consenting to the evidence heard being applied to the other two charges. His Worship reserved his decision.