STREET BETTING

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8609, 20 December 1913, Page 8

STREET BETTING

CHARGES FAIL SEVERAL POLICE INFORMATIONS DISMISSED. Another hotting case occupied attention at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, Mr J. S. Evans, S.M.. presiding. It was alleged against William Ham that on four specified days towards the end of October ho had loitered in Mercer street for the purpose of betting. Defendant was represented by Mr M. Myers and Mr E. J. Fitzgibbon. Mr Myers contended that the police had treated the defendant unfairly by waiting until so King after the dates of the alleged offences before proceeding with the case. The defendant’s chances were greatly prejudiced by the lapse of. time, and counsel submitted that tho charge should be withdrawn. Inspector Hendrey, who conducted tho prosecution, explained that pressure of work through the strike had prevented the authorities from going on with tho case immediately. The information in respect of October 25th was then proceeded with. The first witness called was Detec-tive-Sergeant Cassells, who said that ho knew the defendant, who was a bookmaker and frequented the neighbourhood of Mercer street. Tho locality was one in which most of tho bookmakers did their business. To Mr Myers: Witness did not know that tho defendant was engaged in supplying coal to certain firms in the city and had. an office in Cooper’s Buildings at the corner of Mercer street. . Constable Bevell stated that on October 23rd he saw the defendant standing for about a quarter of an hour at the corner of Willis and Mercer streets. Constable Hurley said that on. tho afternoon of tho day in question he saw the defendant speaking to two men in Willis street. Witness saw the defendant hand them a card which, after consulting, they returned with something which Ham put in his poclaot. During the conversation the three stood in a doorway. Twice afterwards during the same afternoon witness saw the defendant retire in company with different men to the identical doorway where he was first seen. To Mr Myers: Witness was standing at that time in a building on. the opposite side of Willis street, and was looking through a window at the proceedings. He was unable to say from that distance whether it was a race card that was handed to tho men. After hearing addresses from Mi Myers and Inspector Hendrey. His Worship said that he was not satisfied that the locality was frequented by bookmakers. There were suspicious circumstances about the defendant’s movements, but His Worship considered that the evidence was_ not sufficient for him to enter a conviction against the defendant. His Worship also took tho lapse of time since the alleged offence into consideration and dismissed the information. The informations regarding two of the other days, in which the defendant was alleged to have committed an offence, were withdrawn without , evidence being taken. Inspector Hendrey then decided to continue with the information in respect of October 25th. Constable Hurley gave evidence to the effect that he had seen the defendant on that day engaged several times in proceedings similar to those previously described. Taking the whole of the circumstances into consideration, His Worship said that he would have great hesitation before convicting the defendant on the evidence given. The information would be dismissed. A similar information against James Ham, a son of the defendant’s, was withdrawn on Inspector Hendrey’s application,- The inspector stated that the evidence would have been tho same as in the other cases.