BETWEEN TWO EIRES

NZ Truth, Issue 1001, 31 January 1925, Page 6

BETWEEN TWO EIRES

Indictable: Summary ,

Some Legal Intricacies.

Cricket is. 'no more gloripus m its' uncertainty than is law and legal argument. Most of Monday of last week tit the Auckland Magistrate's Court was spent m a 'very interesting fight over a series of betting charges, the battles being between counsel for the defendant and the police prosecutor. Magistrate I?oynton was on the Bench, and the opposing factions were Chief Detective Cummings for the police and Lawyer . Luxford for the defendant, William George Brown. There A/ere eight informations' of laying tote odds and taking doubles, which are summary charges dealt with by a Magistrate; ! arid a ninth charge was that of following the occupation of a bookmaker, which is a matter for, a Judge and jury. . The first clash came at the opening. The Chief Detective announced that he would proceed with the; summary offences. To this. his opponent objected. He reckoned that . the summary charges were ingredients of' the major charge, and that, if evidence was led on the minor charges, decision 'should be reserved pending the result of the Supreme. Court proceedings.

The Chief Detective contended that ' as prosecutor he could take the charges as he' wished; he had that unmistakable right, and further, he had' the right, -by. authority which he quoted, to press for a' decision on the evidence adduced. .'■■'■■ The Bench admitted that the prosecutor had those rights, and, after some further argument, the evidence was proceeded with on the summary charges^ Brown .pleading: not guilty. \: v- '..,/'/■ ■'UNPAID "DIVVIES." : : Constable Craigie told how he had met defendant' on various occasions' m hotels about the ; city and made bets with him on horses at different race meetings. Amongst, his bets he hid: 10/- ohßoomerday, which won m the Tauraarunui Gup. bracketed with Gala Day. He subsequently say/: Brown

and asked for his "divvy," but it had not yet been paid. •

John Robert Robson, an enginedriveri said he took £ 2 worth of Gold Light ,an<\- Royal Blood at the Avondale races "at 66 to 1. He had a friend with him when the deal was "put through Brown. The double "came ' off," but repeated requests, had failed to bring, out the' £132 due to him. Brown afterwards said that witness' had taken Illumination and not Gold Light m the double, but that was not the case. Witness told Brown he would make it awkward for him and Brown replied that he could do as he well liked. The money had not been paid yeti

In cross-examination, Robson said he saw the police three weeks afterwards, "as any gentleman would." ■He went to the police because he was advised to. He admitted he made/the bet' with Brown because he knew he was a bookmaker. He did not reckon he was doing wrong, as he had not seen anybody "had up" for it. : He was not "squealing out" because he had not been paid. It : was not true that he had met defendant at Christmas time and said he had made a mistake about the double. \ INDEMNITY SOUGHT. Before he left the witness box, Robson claimed indemnity under section 61 of the Gaming Act. Section 61 gives a protection to any person' making a be-t, who gives truthful evidence, and renders him immune from prosecution. • Racecourse Inspector Cullen and Senior Detective. Ward gave evidence as to the "system" of bookrriaking, each •stating that, so far as he knew, laying of doubles and betting on tote odds were the only systems of horse betting carried on m New Zealand. Senior Detective Ward said he. knew Brown, having- previously interviewed him. He knew that he acted as a "bookie" and laid tote odds, though he did- not know of his having been m the, habit of laying doubles. / In cross-examination the Senior Detective said he did not know of any practice in -New Zealand' of laying, straight-out odds. .

' Detective Meiklejohn gave evidence that he saw Constable Craigie with Brown m the act 'of transacting- business. [Witness arrested defendant,

and on searching him at the Detective Office found £124 12s lOd on him. There were also a small note book and a betting slip m Brown's belonging's, each containing entries appertaining t6 betting. "Witness knew Brown as a "bookie," and had not known him' do anything i.lse. He was aware that Brown was the owner of property, besides holding mortgages. ' POWER TO AMEND. This concluded the evidence, and, after sparring by counsel and the Chief Detective as to what was to happen next, Mr. Luxforcl addressed the Court.

He argued that there was no offence disclosed m the informations , as they were worded, and he questioned the authority of the Court to make 'an amendment. In any case, he contested the admissibility of the evidence as to system, and he ?-rgued that there was no proof •of any contract between Craigie and the defendant. It had been shown. that money and a slip of paper had been handed to ; defendant, but that was far from proving a bet, he submitted. There was nothing to show that money had been handed to Brown tp.be put on a horse on conditions specified by which the defendant was obliged to pay so much m return.

Mr. Cummings reckoned the information was quite adequately ""worded, and, if .not, he quoted authority which he said, gave the Court ample juris-

diction to make an amendment. The evidence as to system could not be contested, he averred, and the story by Craigie showed quite clearly that the bets had been made m the acknowledged manner. No evidence had been adduced m defence, and he was entitled to claim that a prima facie case had been established. That being so, he wound up by emphasising his right to claim a decision on the evidence led. The S.M. did not feel inclined to give a decision offhand. The transactions were somewhat mixed and he would take time to go through his notes. The Chief Detective stated that if it v.'ere held that a prima facie case had been established, he would offer no evidence on the major offence of bookmakirig. ' Mr. Luxford quite evidently did not like this aspect of the matter. He said, speaking advisedly, that the police were flouting defendant's privilege to go to the Supreme Court and he again contended that the Magistrate's decision should be held over pending the Supreme Court hearing. The . S.M. remarked that the police had said they would withdraw the indictable offence. Mr. Luxford wanted the withdrawal there and then, but this was not conceded ; by Mi*. Cummings. The Magistrate reserved judgment for a week. A DEADLOCK. 'When the case was again called on Monday,. Chief Detective Cummings said he would offer no evidence on the indictable offence of following the occupation , of a bookmaker. ' The S.M. accordingly dismissed the case for want of evidence. Mr. Luxford stated that he wished to make an application for a writ of prohibition and asked that all matters be allowed to stand over till that was dealt with. The S.M. concurred and adjourned all the cases sine die without delivering judgment on the summary charges.