OFFICE "WELSHING."

NZ Truth, Issue 881, 14 October 1922, Page 11

OFFICE "WELSHING."

Punters Who Don't Pay. The sporting scribe'" of the London "Daily Mail" writes: An extensive mail on the subject of "welshing" by office-keepers includes letters about the defaulting punter. Some extracts follow: "For every dishonest layer there are a thousand dishonest punters. Every bookmaker catches them, and many have forced into an appearance of dishonesty by having to 'knock' on account of losses on the book and through being continually robbed by clients not paying." — T. Sutton. v "The ready- money merchant m Scotland exists only because of the 'knocking' backer. If all backers were honorable a decent s.p. man m London would take all they could give him. In the present state of affairs a week showing a profit m figures of £500 is liable to show a loss m the bank. Hundreds of layers have chucked \it owing to bad debts, but J doubt if the family of 'acceptors' can truthfully say the same." — W. Garwin. . "Dishonest backers, to my mind, often cause dishonest layers. . Large numbers of such persons prey on the bookmaker. They usually use the telephone, and when results go unfavorably they use every device known and unknown to evade payment. Against these defaulters the bookmak- ' er has no redress, and won't have till betting is legalised."— X. "You will get shoals-of letters about this>" writes one sufferer, and he was right, while another expresses ' his gratification at my having raised "this question of the Forty Thieves (Unlimited)! which has been a crying shame for years — the public swindled wholesale and no redress." "Some of these men ride about m motor cars when they ought to be m Black Marias," is the bitter comment of yet another of the defrauded. Quite three-parts of the complaints relate to "lost" instructions for ■backing winners', and the disappearance of accompanying postal or money orders. Of course the cashing of these would be evidence of receipt, a thing the "w'elsher" scrupulously avoids. ' So they are destroyed, and the sender blandly told that his letter never arrived, or else that he omitted to enclose cash. One correspondent states that he sent five crossed P.O.'s to the same firm., In every case the horse backed won, but receipt was always denied and the Post Office authorities, to whom he forwarded the counterfoils, could never trace the missing orders. "All ,my losing bets were acknowledged with condolences and an exhortation to 'try again.' They had a printed form for that." Sometimes there is* a double "loss," as happened to -the client of a London firm. His instructions .to back a horse which won at a good price never arrived. Nor did the firm's cheque for his winnings for the previous week, although they pledged the'r word of honor that it was posted all right. It is impartially pointed out by MiRandall that backers and layers are both innocent m many cases of lost cash.' "Somewhere or other the letters disappear, and the risk that letters to well-known ready-money bookmakers will disappear is one which both parties jmust be prepared to take." • \ That is so. But, all the same, there is a horrible lot of office "welshing."