WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8190, 3 August 1912, Page 15

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

POLICE INSPECTOR RECEIVESBETTING NOTIFICATION. BOOKMAKER CHANGED WITH PUBLICATION. Another case of alleged publication of a document respecting betting came before Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when James Stellin was charged with having published on or about July Ist a notification on' his pirn behalf as to betting on horse races. Chief-Detective. Broberg prosecuted and Mr T. M. Wilford appeared for defendant. Inspector Ellison stated that on July Bth he received by post a letter containing a circular marked ‘‘no reply wires,” a memo, from “S, Wellington,” marked ‘‘strictly confidenital,” 'fud a betting chart on which were stated the prices on several races which were subsequently run at Trentham. The latter requested prospective betting clients to do business with defendant. Witness did not allege that Stellin addressed the letter to him as prospective client. The letter apparently came from Nelson. Witness recognised the marks on the letter as” being those of Stellin’s. To Mr Wilford: Witness did not know how the contents of the envelope reached Nelson and he had no arrangement with anyone in Nelson to send him the letter. On the document marked ‘‘S’* there was no notification of betting, but there was information as to how to go about it. Mr Wilford: Looking at the matter through police spectacles there is no indication as to betting ? Inspector Ellison: Looking at the matter through racing spectacles the thing would; bo worse than looking at it through .police spectacles. (Laughter.) WHAT DOES “S” MEAN? Detective Hammond gave evidence, to the effect that the chart, in addition to quoting prices on races at the recent Trentham meeting, specified the odds on events which are yet to be run in the Dominion. Witness knew that the letter “S” was Stellin’s sign. Mr Wilford: Do you know every bookmaker in New Zealand ?- I know the majority of them, i don’t know them all. Are there any whose names begin with the letter “S” f—Yes. there are sure to be. Witness thought he could safely say that Stellin was answerable for the publication of tbe documents. Mr Wilford: To Inspector Ellison directly?—Oh, no—indirectly. Axe you prepared to give any evidence that Stellin -published any ouo of these documents?—No. Have you any evidence, direct or indirect, that Stellin published any one of these document* to Inspector Ellison? —I cannot answer that question.

Have you any other evidence of the docursenta haring been published to

anybody except Inspector Ellison?—l don’t know how tho Inspector camo by them. In answer to Chief-Detective Broberg witness said ho know every bookmaker who issued charts. There wore a great many bookmakers who did not send out charts. Witness only knew one other bookmaker whose name began with ‘‘S.” There were no other bookmakers who used a chart bearing the sign “S.” EVIDENCE OF MALICE.

Mr Wilford submitted that the iiw formation should be dismissed. The evidence showed that it was intended by someone to play a trick on Stellin and that it was intended to get him prosecuted. .The case revealed all the elements of ■ malice., Where was 1 -the evidence of publication to Inspector Ellisou ? There was no proof of publication by Stellin to anybody and until that was found no conviction could be recorded. Chief-Detective Broberg contended that if a bookmaker manufactured a circular and sent it to a client . and that client sent it on to a police officer, then tho person who manufactured the document was responsible, not only for tho publication to bis client, but for the publication to ths police officer. His Worship reserved decision.