BETTING WITH KIDS.

NZ Truth, Issue 151, 9 May 1908, Page 4

BETTING WITH KIDS.

A Pony Book Before the Beak.

Fetches a " Fiver " and Costs.

. A bookmaker named' Dick McDonald, who was represented by Mr T. Wilford, pleaded guilty to a charge of betting with an infant on the Miramar course at the Magistrate's Court, Wellington, before Mr Riddell, S.M., on Monday. Mr Wilford pointed out that defendant was following a legitimate occupation as a bookmaker, but under the act it was illegal to make bets with v an infant. The size of the boy with whom the bet was made precluded any defence that might bli offered that defendant was unaware that thes boy was under 21 r— — of age. if defendant had chosen to plead not guilty. Mr Wilford emphasised the fact that betting by infants was not allowed m connection with the totalisator, and it was not allowed with bookmakers on the ordinary racecourses, but evidently this practice was not followed out at Miramar. He urged that, m addition to the prohibition of betting with infants, boys should not be allowed to go-oAtbe course at all. When a bookmaker /was engaged m his calling on the course, be shouted out m raucous tones at the ton of his voice— and which offended the ears of everyone who heard him— and usually never saw the people he was bettintr with, as there were so many people pushing around him. Mr Wilford went on to say that when the new A«st was passed last session, the term of imprisonment for offences under the Act was purposely kept' down, although the fine was increased, so that a man could not elect to tro before a jury. Men who had committed burglary, or had BEATEN THEIR WIVES WITH AN AXE HANDLE, had been allowed the benefit of the First Offenders Probation Act, and he urged that the, provision of the Act i should be applied to first offences under the Gaming Act. A man who had committed burglary at Woodville, and who had a good character previously. was granted probation, and a man who had robbed his employer of £100 was allowed the benefits of the First Offenders Act by Mr Justice Button. Why. m the face of the cases quoted, not allow the same Drivilege to the. defendant as had been allowed m other cases. There seemed to be a kind of idea on the nart «tt magistrates— he did not refer to Mr Riddell— to inflict a heavy fine m betting prosecutions; he had seen a man get a higher sentence for betting than a man received for hitting his wife with an .axe handle. Sir Frederick Darlev. Chief Justice of New Souih Wales, , had culled attention to this, difference between sentences inflicted on betting offenders .md offenders under other Acts. Mr Wilford strongly urged that defendant m this _ case should be convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called ' upon. Mr Riddell considered that the offence was not one that came within the meaning of the First Offenders Probation Act. and that Act could not apply to defendant. As regards the severe sentences mentioned by Mr Wilfoid, he had nothing to do with whatever sentences other Magistrates imposed, but he would impose his own sentences. Defendant was coavicted and fined £5.