POLLOCK PROSECUTED

NZ Truth, Issue 578, 15 July 1916, Page 12

POLLOCK PROSECUTED

STIPENDIARY CURRY TELLS THE TAX

OF ALLEGED BETTING ON A TRAIN

lawyer tianlon is Curious m Cress-examination

The President of the Canterbury Jockey Clab Gives Evidence-^And Protests that He is Not a Private Detective

fFrom Truth's" Christchurch Rep.)

An interesting' betting prosecution, m which some well-known figureheads of the New Zealand turf played a prominent part, was heard before Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., m the Christchurch Magistrate's Court last week when William Pollock, of Dunedin, was charged on, two Informations (a) that on May 6, being a bookmaker, he did bet m a public place as denned by Section 2 of the Gaming Act, (b) that he did gamble on a special train run m connection with the Ashburton races on May 5, contrary to clause 25 of the New Zealand Government Hallway bylaws.^ Chief-detective- Herbert prosecuted, and Mr. A. C. Kanlbn, who appeared for Pollock, pleaded not guilty. Opening the case for the prosecution, the Chief-detectivo said that on May 4 and 5 there were races at Ashburton,

a special train being run from Christchurch, and, on the second day, Pollock was seen m a railway carriage DISTRIBUTING BETTING CARDS and receiving money for a bet The information m tho flxst charge was laid under tho Gaming Act, 1910, and the polico quoted as their authority that a railway train was a public place, the cases Alrton and another v. Scott (TJL..R., X.8., 25 pp 250) and Langrich v. Archer (10 Q.8.D., pp. 44) being mentioned.

Donald Burns, m charge of the railway booking office at Cbristchurch, gave formal evidence concerning the special trains m question. Granville E. Curry, a stipendiary steward m the employ of the New Zealand Racing Conference, stated that on May 4 and 5 he travelled from Christchurch to Ashburton races, and, on the second day, occupied a seat m a firstclass smoking compartment on the special train, Messrs. W. F. M. Buckley, Q. Murray- Ainsley and Buchanan being also occupants of the same carriage. Witness saw Pollock, whom ho understood to bo a bookmaker, pass through the smoking carriage and, after distributing race-cards, return and take a gold coin from one of the persons to whom he had previously given a race-card. Pollock was accompanied by a man who made an entry on a writing pad when the money passed botween the two parties. Witness took the man with the writing pad to be Pollock's clerk and, although ho saw only one transaction m the carriage under observation, witness subsequently walked into the lobby opposite tho lavatory and saw the clerk make four or five entries whilst he was with Pollock In the adjoining- carriage. "Witness did not actually handle any of

the cards which Pollock, distributed, but he -was satisfied that they resembled betting cards, the size and appearance of which he was familiar with. „-.■■ Mr. Hanlon: Did you take particular notice of what was going on? — I suppose I did. I don't want to know what you suppose. Please answer my question, "yes" or "no"? — .Well, yes. Then why did you take particular notice? It was not your business to do so, I understand. — I'm supposed to report to my Conference any bookznaking carried on a racecourse. Exactly. Then why — ? — And I consider train betting should be looked into, because IT DOES RACING NO GOOD. You think ifs part of. your duty to suppress betting on the railway? — Yes.. • Do you think youTe paid by the racing conference to do that? — Yes. Ever done anything like this before? — No, Fve never seen it. But on this occasion you- took particular notice, for the purpose of reporting to the police, whose duty it is to watch for this sort of thing? — No. Then for the purpose of reporting to .whom?— l reported to the Ashburton Racing Club. And did you report it to the Bacing Conference? — Yes. When? — After the meeting was over. You reported it as a case of betting m the railway train? — Yes. And, of course, you could only have reported it because you took such particular notice as would enable you to report what you were certain was the truth? — Yes. Well, did "you procure one of those cards mentioned? — No. Why? You wanted a prosecution! — No, I didn't. My suggestion was that the railway authorities should be informed, and that the police should patrol the , trains to prevent bookmaking. Then, seeing that you did not want a prosecution but intended to report the matter, why didn't you get a card? — That -was no business of mine. But you made it your business? — All right, yes.

Well, why didn't you get a card?— I wasn't interested m them. I didn't want a bet.

But can you explain why you didn't get a card m order to "make sure that they were race-cards that Pollock distributed? As la matter of fact, are you

prepared to swear to his Worship that the cards contained the names of acceptors m the races? — Well, no.

A mild argument ensued between the Bench and counsel concerning a difference between acceptors and starters and, on Mr. Hanlon professing to know little about racing and conceding the S.M. tho benefit of tho doubt, the Chief-detective, who hails from Dunedin, facetiously remarked, "Oh, Mr. Hanlon doesn't know anything about it He's only a steward of tho Dunedin Jockey Club." (Mirth.) Mr. Hanlon (to Curry) : Dld you read any of the entries mudo on the pad by Pollock's clerk? — No. Therefore, you cannot swear that any single entry mado by him was relative to horsoraclng or betting? — No. Perhaps, when tho gold coin passed between Pollock and tho other person, you heard some conversation. Dlcf you? —No. Can you (with emphasis), con you say positively, truthfully, that tho money which passed between thorn had anything whatever to do with horseracing? — No. You'vo mentioned that the size and appearanco of tho cards led you to beHovo that they wero race-cards. la thero any particular charm about racecards? Is there any 1 particular Bhapo7 Tho cards you saw were Httlo oblong pieces of paper, weren't they?- — Yes. And all you really know Is that some race-cards aro also little oblong piece* of paper? — Yes. Now, on everything you saw and heard, can you swear — SWEAR, MIND YOU! ■—that a bot was made by Pollock m the train?— No. The Chief -detective: I bellevo you've hod no previous experience of batting prosecutions, Mr. Curry T— No. And no experience of pollca court procedure? — No. Had you known as much as you

know now, would you have got a card? —Yes.

William Frederick McLean Buckley, president of the Canterbury Jockey Club, was called. He said he went to the Ashburton races m a first-class smoking carriage on May 4 and 6, and "saw Pollock on both days, although he .did not see Curry m the carriage. On the second day, Pollock gave betting -cards to people m the carriage, inc£ud.\vsg witness's two friends m the next -seat. Witness did not have one of the- : cards m his possession, but he saw ■those which his friends had and he could tell they were betting cards. He saw no money pass between Pollock and anyone else and Pollock's clerk: was carrying- nothing m the way of a writing pad oti the second day. The Chief- detective asked permission to interrogate the witness concerning what he saw taking place between Pollock and his clerk on the first day. Mr. Hanlon objected, and the Chief - detective explained that the information would possibly tend to show that what took place on the first day was similar to what took place on the second day. Mr. Hanlon contended that the question was not one of accident, mistake or system, although it was not so material that he would mind a great deal if it were admitted. In that case, however, he would ask that bis objection be recorded, m view of anything which might follow. , The S.M. disallowed the question. Mr. Hanlon: I may take it, Mr. Buckley, that you did not consider the matter any real business of yours? — No, not as any particular business of mine. And you didn't report it to the police? , — No. I might say, though; that I mentioned it to Superintendent Dwyer. Not as an official report, with a view to prosecution? — No. If you had had that intention, of course, would you have taken particular notice of what occurred? — Well, I did take particular notice, because there had been complaints about the effect on racing of-double betting and this sort of thing. • If you were so Interested, why didn't you get a card, and you could then have produced it and said, "Here's one of the cards which the defendant distributed"?—As you said, PM NOT A PRIVATE DETECTIVE. If I had been, Td have got a card. Did you read any of the cards you saw?— No, bat I could read what was on them. You didn't have a card m your hand? —No. Could you swear that the names on the cards were horses? — No. You didn't see any bet made on the train?— Not on the second day. Nor did. you see Pollock pay or receive any money on that day? — No. Detective Tom Gibson gave evidence to the effect that he knew Pollock to be a bookmaker who came from Dunedin to Christchurch . whenever race meetings were held m the latter city. Before closing the case for the prosecution, Chief -detective Herbert quoted the case of Dunning v. Sweetman (T.L.R. 25 pp. 302) to show that the distributing of betting cards or pamphlets was a fundamental part Of the business of bookmaking. ' Mr. Hanlon submitted that for several reasons the charges should be dismissed. The first information, charg-. ing Pollock with "that being a bookmaker, he did bet m a public place," was laid under Section 2 of the Gaming Act, the first part of which section dofined a public place as any street, road, footway, court, alley, thoroughfare or open space. All these words, it was submitted, dealt with a specific kind of open space, of the nature of what the words meant singly and collectively, and a railway carriage could certainly not be called an open space within the meaning of the first part of the section of the Act. In the case, Langrich v. Arthur, It was submitted, that the judges decided not that a railway carriage was comprehended as a "place" within the meaning of the first part of the section, but that under the second part of the section, IT WAS A PLACE to which the public had access. It having been shown that under fine first part of Section 2, a railway carriage could not be deemed a public place, the next question was whether the present case could be brought under the second and concluding part of the section, which made It an offence to bet m all places where the public may assemble." Counsel quoted authorities to show that a railway carriage or a railway platform was not a public place within the meaning of that definition, m that for the purposes of the Act, the word "assemble" was given a specific nijeaning and people did not "assemble" m a railway carriage or on a platform m the ordinary interpretation of the term. They got on to a railway carriage for the purpose of assembling —at tho Asbburtbn racecourse, for instance, or, if two or three people jumped into a tramcar or a ferry steamer for tho purpose of going somewhere, they did not "assemble" and could not be called an assemby or an assemblage In the sense that was meant by tho Act. In connection with betting, "assembly" meant where people were gathered together for the purpose of betting, m the present case the people did not assemble In tho carriage of the "special" for tho purpose of betting, but for the purpose of going to Ashburton to assemble to bet. Regarding the second information, Mr. Hanlon submitted that the case must bo discussed because Pollock was prosecuted under a by-law which said that gambling on a train was on offenco and, even If It had been proved that Pollock had mado a bet, he could not be convicted under the by-law of gambling, because the act of making a bet on a horserace- was not gambling, but of betting, which was vastly different m tho legal Interpretation. Apart from tho aspect, however, the prosecution, on facts alone, could not possibly bo sustained. It had to be proved, before A CONVICTION COULD ENSURE, that Pollock made a bet m a carriage because? the prosecution specifically charged him that he "did bet" and tho preaeiU case could not be confounded with cosea whore a man was charged with tho intention of betting. And had tho prosecution proved that Pollock made a bet? No. there woa not a shred of evidence m support of the allegation. Curry, tho Prosecutor's chief witness, could not say that he saw or heard a bet made and, on the fact of that, how could his Worship, who was not there, roly on tho conclusion that there was a bet? Supposing that In In© Civil Court hU Worship was asked to docido whether a contract had been made between Pollock and some of thetia persons, could ho bo satiaucd that

there was a contract? No. And, if there was no evidence of a contract from a Civil Court point of view, how could it be found that on the more serious penal side there was evidence of a bet? Curry had not been able to tell the Court one word about anything relating to betting on the cards, or m the fact that money passed between Pollock and someone else, neither had he been able to say that an entry made on a writing -pad related to betting and, on the -top of all, he heard no conversation which would suggest that a bet was made. How, m the face of that, could it- be said that the police had proved aflinnatively that there had been a bet? -Then, counsel continued, Mr. Buckley did not know what was on the cards he saw. It was all very well to draw inferences, but they must be drawn on solid facts stated by the witnesses and. m the present case, the witnesses stated that they did not know what was on the cards. In conclusion, Mr. Hanlon submitted that it was the S.M.s bounden duty to DISMISS BOTH INFORMATIONS. The S.M. said he would deliver his decision m a few days' time, as he wished to look up a recent authority which had just come to hand, and which, so far, he had no time to peruse.