BETTING CHARGE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8681, 14 March 1914, Page 14

BETTING CHARGE

A CASE DISMISSED. Before Mr D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, Bert Crook was charged that on February 21st, 1914, being a bookmaker, he did bet on licensed premises, to wit, Masonic Hotel. The accused, who was represented by Mr. H. F. O’Leary, pleaded “not guilty.” Counsel, to shorten proceedings, admitted that there were races at Wanganui at the time of the alleged betting, and that the Masonic Hotel was licensed premises. Constable Leo. Revell said ho remembered seeing the accused in the Masonic Hotel on February 21st. Defendant was with two other men in the public bar, and one of the men said to witness, “Do you care about a double?” Witness replied that he didn’t mind. With that defendant pulled a “double” card from his pocket. The Wanganui races were on at the time. Defendant passed the card to witness. Witness drew attention 'to the fact that the card was nearly full, with the exception of two horses. Witness asked accused to write the names of two horses on a piece of paper, which he did and handed 'to'witness. He paid defendant 2s, and left the hotel. When he saw accused next time he asked whether he had had a “leg in.” Defendant replied “no.” Cross-examined: He didn’t know the accused previous to the occurrenceThe card that he saw was not a printed one, but a home made one. He did not see another man hand over the card to the defendant. He might have done so.

Detective-Sergeant Cassells said he went to the Masonic Hotel on March 6th and saw the accused there. He charged him with the offence, and he replied “1 haven’t made any bet.” Andrew Collins, secretary of the Bakers’ Union, said, he knew the accused, who had been a member of the union for some seven or eight years. The accused was in constant employment. . For the defence Mr O’Leary said that the man who had asked the constable was not the accused. Even if His Worship was satisfied that a bet had been made, the accused had to be proved a bookmaker before a conviction could be entered. No evidence had been offered that it was common knowledge that the accused was a. bookmaker. The man had continuously worked at his avocation of a baker. Counsel submitted that one or two bets did not make a man a bookmaker. ' There must be evidence of a number of bets that would lead irresistibly to tho conclusion that accused earned his living as a bookmaker- or was partially dependent on that calling for his living. The case turned on that of Dudley v. Connolly. The only thing the police had against the accused was that he had two bets with the constable. It was in the accused s favour that the card which the accused had in his possession was not a printed one. ' . , , Inspector Hendrey said the card was nearly full, and therefore over 100 bets must have been made. The Magistrate said that there was not sufficient evidence to convict. The case would he dismissed.