A DOUBLE CHART

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8653, 11 February 1914, Page 9

A DOUBLE CHART

BETTING CHARGES MUCH TROUBLE EXPERIENCED WITH A AVITNESS. A case of some interest was dealt with by Mr E. AV. Burton in tho Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when Henry Martiudale was charged that on or about December 3rd, 1913, he published a document which contained a notification on behalf of Scott and Martiudale as to betting on Uorso races to be run at Auckland on December sth. There'was also a charge of publishing a document containing a notification as to betting on horse races that were to be run at AVoodville on December 10th. Defendant,who was represented by Mr M. Myers, pleaded not guilty'. Chief Detective Broberg prosecuted. Hearing of the first charge was proceeded with.

Superintendent -Ellison, in the box, stated that on December bth last he received a letter by post, addressed "Chief of Police. Wellington." The letter contained a document in tho nature of a "double!’ chart on the Auckland Cup and Hail way Handicap. . His AVorship: “I don’t understand much about racing. This is all Green to me.” Tho inspector, in explanation, said the chart was a means of giving information on the betting offered upon the “doubles” in those two races. The letter also contained a. letter and a telegram. He knew the' defendant as a bookmaker, established for years in AVel. lingtou. . . , To Mr Myers: He knew this because it was of common knowledge and common repute. Dejections by counsel.

George Levy, a clerk in the Post and Telegraph Department, Wellington, submitted the .authority pf the PostmasterGeneral to hand over three telegrams (produced) to the detectives. Mr Myers objected to the telegrams being put in as evidence, on the ground that they were irrelevant to the charge. Tha chief detective said he would submit evidence later on to. prove that they were relevant. , , Arthur William St. John, a clerk in the Union Bank ot Australia,- produced a cheque for .£l3 2s Cd, drawn by Scott and Martindale. It was dated December 2nd. 1913. Witness's bank had received the cheque from the Bank of New Soutu Wales. It was honoured. Mr Myers again raised a point of relevancy, which the magistrate reserved ior consideration. " , Francis Raymond Picot. ledger-keeper at th© Bank of New Sonth Wales, gave evidence that the cheque .which heu just been produced was received on December Bth. 1913, from D. E. Porter; oi Kopiitaroa. It Was accompanied by a credit slip and was forwarded to the Union Bank.. Bertie Porter, wife -of David Edward Porter, of Koputaroa. said that while at her husband's residence she received a telegram addressed to him. 'The telegram was produced. . • ) Mr Myers raised a question or relevancy as to the production of the telegram and, the admittance of the evidence of Mrs Porter upon this point. Chief Detective Broberg said he was entitled to put in the telegram, in order to show that there was a business connection between Martindale and the person to whom it was sent. His Worship said he would' rule tho telegram to be admissible. ■ Continuing her evidence. Mrs Porter said that on December 2nd she sent a telegram addressed ''Scott and Martindale, Wellington," which read, 'On no account send any communication, to Koputaroa. In future send Hotel Arcadia, Levin." Shortly after she received a letter addressed "U. Porter. Hotel Arcadia'. Levin." She -sent fhe contents to Mr Ellison. Tho contents consisted of a bettine list, an account and a cheque. She gave the cheque, which was for Ala 2s 6d to her husband. The telegram that she got ton December Ist read : "Booked." The telegram, sent to bcott and Martindale, signed D. Porter, was lin her husbandfs handwriting. the message (produced) read, ‘Scott ®nd Martindale Wellington. Three liauy Louiga. to-day. D. Porter.” ' Mr Myers: "Did you send any communication to Scott and Martindale in your husband's name 'without his A-utlic-ritjrfP ' A WITNESS WARNED.

Chief Detective Brobergsaid that the witness should .bo 'warned that bv iier answer she might incriminate herseit. Mr Myers: "Did you not know that in signing your husband’s name to a telegram you were committing forgery?* Witness said she understood a wife had tho right to use her husband's name. She had no authority to seqd any communication to Scott and Martxndale in her husband’s . name. She opened « letter addressed to her husband, but eke had no authority to do this. EVIDENCE REFUSED.

David E. Porter, residing at Koputaroa, and tho husband of the last witness, ivas next put in tho box. Chief-Detective Broberg: "Have you at any time prior to December Ist received betting charts from .Scott and Martindale?” Witness : "I decline to answer.' The chief-detective: "Oh! Upon what grounds?”- - ■ Witness: "On the ground that I might incriminate myself.”. * Itiis Worship: "Is there a section in the Gaming Act which renders him liable for receiving a betting card?” - Tho chief-detective; "No. By a tremendous stretch of the Ishv he might.be deemed' guilty vof taking, part in the publication.” His Worship: "Is there any intention on your part, Mr Broberg, to proceed against tho witness as an • aider and abettor?’'

The chief-detective: “No; certainly not.”

Mr Myers said the chief-defective had no light to bind the Grown in that respect ; nor could he compel the witness to Answer such a question. Chief-Detective Broberg contended tliat-kir-Myers had no right to speak on the point. Mr Myers had no standing with regard to the witness, who belonged to the prosecution. . Tlx© question of privilege was oxxe for the witness, and for the witness alone.'

Mr Myers, submitted that it was the duty of counsel, and quite within his pipvinco. to address the court on the subject.

His Worship; "I will allow the question.”

The witness said that he had obtained legal advice, which was to the effect that he could not be compelled to answer the question. He thought he should bo allowed to bavc hie solicitor present. MUST BE ANSWERED.

Chief-Detective Brobcrg repeated the question.

IVituess: *‘l must consult my solicitor before I answer the question.” His Worship: “The question must be answered.”

Witness: "I decline to answer before I bare consulted a solicitor-” The chief-detective: "I must ask Your Worship to deni with the witness.”

His Worship said he would like to have heard the witness’s counsel. H© would give the witness an opportunity to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt. Witness: ‘‘What I want to know is, "bo is going to pay the cost of my counsc I ' (Laughter.! His Worship: "That is a matter for yourself. I will adjourn the court to 2.15 o clock to give the witness an opportunity -of showing cause as to why ho should not answer.” COUNSEL APPEARS.

Upon t he Resumption of the proceedings Mr Gray. K".C., said he appeared for the witness. Hr Porler. His Worship would be asked to infer that there had been a bet made betiveen witness and defendant*

and therefore witness would be in jeopardy if lie was asked to give evidence on tile subject. The police had no hope of succeeding without the ■ witness. His Worship said that what he had to satisfy himself was. whether the plea of privilege was raised bona fide, Chief-Detective Broberg said the question that he had put to flip witness had no reference to bets, hut merely to whether he (Porter) had previous to December Ist received charts from .Scott and Martindale- In no way was it intended to render the witness liable to prosecution. His Worship bold that the question'' must Ire answered. When the witness was put in the bos he again declined to answer. His Worship thereupon made an order, under section 83 of the Justices of the Peace Act, committing the witness to prison for three days, unless he consented to answer. Alfred Dryden, chief posiraaster at Wellington, gave evidence that the telegram and the telegraphic slip produced were traUscripts of One another. Mr Myers Ho save the .expense of bringing a witness from Auckland) admitted that, the two races forming the basis of the charge were to be run at the time of the chart being made public. Mr Myers also admitted that there a racing mare named Lady Louisa. Detective-Sergeant McTlvirney said he know the defendant as a bookmaker — one of the firm of Scott and Martindale. He onlv knew of onb firm bearing that name in Wellington. THE WITNESS ANSWERS. At this stage Mr Gray intimated that his client would answer the question. He would do this without retreating from the position ho had taken up. The witness was pursuing this course owing to his having urgent private business, otherwise he would willingly have gone to gaol fop principle’s sake. The witness again entered the bos. Chief Detective Broberg; ‘‘Now, Mr Porter, have you at any time; prior to December Ist received any betting charts from Scott and Martindale?" The .witness said he 7 could pot answer the question. He had received ‘‘double" charts, but he could not sav whether they were from Scott and Martindale. The charts he had received vx - ere green ones. He- did not hack "doubles." He could not say where any of 'the betting (communications came from. His 'Worship said he did not understand why the witness had given so mtich trouble.'

Chief Detective Broberg: “No. Ho had nothing to be afraid of." Mr Gray: “Well. I hope Detective Broberg will send along a cheque to pay his costs.” The order for the committal of the witness was cancelled. •

Mr Myers submitted that there had been no publication whatsoever proved. Whatever relations had existed between Mr Porter and the defendant they bad pething to do with making "doubles.” After hearing protracted legal argument His Worship intimated that he would reserve his decision. Hearing of the second charge was adjourned tune die. .