TOTE BETTING AT THE RACECOURSE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10760, 26 March 1897, Page 4

TOTE BETTING AT THE RACECOURSE.

BOOKMAKERS BEFORE THK COURT. At the Police Court yesterday Joseph Dixon ! was charged with trespassing on the racecourse on | February 24. Air B. 0. Haggitt appeared on behalf of the Jockey Ulub to prosecute, and.Mr Sim for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. j Mr Haggitt stated thst this information was ! similar in every respect to informations heard by ! his Worship torn-! years ago. In this instance i there were races held at Forbury Park on the I 24th, 25th, aud 2Sth of February last. Prior to ' that an advertisement was published in the ' papers i Mr Sim objected. He submitted that his j learned friend could not refer to the advertisements, j His Worship : I don't see that this can be used as evidence against the defendant unles? it was proved he was aware of them. Mr Haggict said that all he wanted to show was lh.it the club took every opportunity to warn theia pejple. Anyhow defendant was a dis- ! qualified person. i Mr^Sirn: By whom, pray, and in respect of Mr Haggitt: By the Jockey Club for his own m-sconduct against the rules and regulations under which the races were held. Mr Sim: Do the club exercise a statutory power ? Mr Haggitt replied that the offence complained of was not against the rules of the club but of trespassing on its property. Hh Worship would recollect that.ia December, 1893, he had similar case 3 before him. There was' a ca-e against John Jone^ who wa3 charged with an ex.ietly similar offence. Hii Worship took a great deal of trouble in arrivingat a decision, and gave judgment which appeared in the newspapers i übout the 4th of January. One of those charged ! at that time was the present defendant. I Mr Sim stated that hig friend appeared to want j to prejudice defendant a3 much as possible. First | he wanted to show he was a disqua'ified person, i 'and again that he appeared in a previous case ' j His Worship said it would be strong evidence , that defendant failed to leave when requested to I do so j _ Mr Hi4ggitt said he did not state these facts to i increase the penalty but to show that the defen- > dant had beeu through the whole process and refused to leave evea af'er he had previously been convicted of trespassing. It was a csse of a man deliberately ana wilfully defying the club However, it Mr Sim objected he would say no more on i that point ]use then. j Mr Sim : After having said all you wanted to i Mr.Uaf.gm (continuing) said that his Worship i would ;ecollect that }n the cass against Jonea j there was some discussion as to the word "owner " j and ha contended then a? he did now that owner ! meant the occupants for the time b=in-» of the i property He had quoted thsn the case Lewis jv. Arnold, which his Worship decided «ud- = ported the argument advanced in this respect. ; iae facts on this occasion were that on the 24th • February Mr B»in was appointed to warn tote ; lyttors and disqualified jersons off the course. i He iound defendant laying tot* odds, and afW a I time got him off the coarse. An hour after how- : ever, Mr Bain again found him oa the course I engaged in tote betting. He, however, eluded { Mr liain, and hid amongst the crowd on the ! course. These, shortly, were the facts. He ! would prove by other evidence that accused wa3 j warned off the course, but was seen again after i tnat ou it The question of dealing with these I i-ersons had frequently come up since the last j cases were heard here, and once a case came before | the Chief Juatic-:—viz., a cisc where Thomas | Kobicson,. bookmaker, of Wellington, brought an ; action for the recovery of £500 against the Town I. and Suburban Racing (Hub for illegal arrest, and : which was tried at Napier on June 30. His I Honor, in giving judgment, said: "It was quite clear that the plaintiff had been given in charge in order to procure his removal from the ! course, that it was not on account of I h's laying totalisatcr odds, but because he | rafused to leave when told to do 3a after having j broken one of the conditions under which people . were allowed on Ihu course. As to the plaintiff t being locked up, that might have become necessary if, after having been removed from the course, he persisted ia returning there. It was nevertheless justifiable, but he should have been br Jught before a roa?Utrate. The act contemplated that if a peison wilfully trespassed upon another* land, and refused to leave when called upon to dc £O lhat was an offeace, and upon sight of that ii was lawful for a constable to take a peraoa sc offending into custody and to keep, him in custodj until a charge against him could be properly laic and investigated. Here it was manifest that th< j stewards thought it was not necessary to lay ar ;. information after the arrest as all' they wantec j was for the constable to remove the plaintiff fron i !be course and take him in charge if necessary \ His Honor thought the defence had been fullj l made out, and intimated that if he had. though' : there was a technical offence under the circus j stances he would have given the lowest possibl I amount of damages. Judgment would be for thi j defendant?,'with coats on the middle scale." ; Mr Haggitt th?n proceeded to call witnesses, j H. Ij. James, assistant secretary to the Dunedu ! Jockey Club, gave evidence that. Mr- Bain wa: j appointed by the cldb to take necessary steps' t I have bookmakers, tote bettors, and disqualifiei j persons removed from the course during rac I ineatinga. Witness advertised in the Otago Dail' I Tim?s that such people were warned off th' ! course. t i Mr -im objected. If it was a step to prove tha i the matter was brought under the notice of th j defendant he could not object, j Mr Haggitt stated that he could not prove tha ! defends-ji read the notice. If he was sittin, j staring at it he could not prove that he could read | His Worship would have to presume it. ] His Worship stated that if Mr Sim objected h ! could not accept the evidence. j Mr Haggitt then asked the witness if a notic I affecting bookmakers and tote bettors was no put at all the entrances to the racecourse and i prominent places inside the course, and the repl j was in the affirmative. i Mr Haggitt: la the accused a disqualifie • • person? : Mr Sim: I object to that. The club mign ■ nave disqualified Mr James. Witness: I was authorised to employ Mr Bii : to keep bookmakers and disqualified .persons o ! the course and remove them if they came on t ■ ] the ground. ' j Mr Haggitt: Was the defendant such a psrso : that Mr Bain was appointed to remove ? : Witness : Yes. To Mr Sim: The club was formed about 18 < . 20 years ngo. The club was formed for the pu ■ pose of cirrying on racing. There was a prof t | sometimes which was distributed in the way ( stakes again and improvements. Mr Sim : The profit belongs to the committf ■ to distribute as it think? fit ?—lt is distributed i • I sfcikes. ' There have 'always been more than 10 stewarc r in the club ?—Yes. You know the defendant, you said, to be f bookmaker?— Yes. Have you ever betted with him ?—No. • Do yon know that he kteps a shop in- Soul I Dunedin?-No. - ! So you only know that he is a bookmaker froi i | what someone has told you ?—He has admitted • me that if he goes to the course he must bet. - Do you bet, Mr James?— Occasionally. B Do you call yourself a bookmaker thea ? -No i Witness then went ou to describe the totalis r tor. He stated that admittance was gained ■ f \ the ground on payment of a shilling which gai c I the right to bet on one totalisator, and the pa i ment of another sum gave the right to bet on ti r machine in the enclosure. He appointed Mr Ba c two or three days before the meeting. The 5 were 11 stewards present when the resolution w; • passed about the bookmakers and disqualify - 1 j persons. J | To Mr Haggitt: The inside totalisator was tl • I property of the club. The outside was not, bi r j was worked for and on behalf of the club. M Uo'-ert Bain was thea called. He stated th Ij he wai a, private detective. He was instructed 1 i- j Mr James, sen., and Mr James, jun., to prevei c I disqualified persons and tote bettors from goii - ; on to the ground, and to have any of them th - j were oa the ground warned off and put off. Wi ■I i ness went to the racecourse before 11 o'clock ( o , tfle 24th of February. He was engaged at t! "■' ! mai-i gate till after 1 o'clock preventing boo r j makers and the other persons described fro • I gaining admission. He saw nothing of ti c j tiefendant. during that time, but on returui' ;. j from the gate he .went to the outside part, ai a i saw the defendant in one of the vacant boot tote betting—tint was laying the same odds a ; the tatalisator, only in smaller sums. Witne I weni up to the defendant and said, "Joe, I've g <i jto r.iqu;st you to leave the course." He mi-ie : j answer, but ran away and doubled round t', ••' j back of the stand. He stayed out of sight, b c j thorcly .if rer he saw him again in the same pla; '" ! and said to him again. "Joe, I have to requs '■ ,; you co leave the course." He ran away once moi 6 i and witness went to get Constable Ward. Wh y I they were lookiDg for him they saw him slippi: le | round the corner of the stand and speak to a ma . j Witness went up to him and said, " You have a | leave." He remarked that witness was pret £ i rough on him, and there were other bookaiak< I tote betting on the course. That was & lit ■J" before 2 o'clock. Half an hour did not clap *■ before witness saw him again in the ssuue localii d Witness went to the gate with him and he we 13 out, but he came back once nrnre. aud remain !t there till the end of the day. Witness asked hi T* to leave the course, but he did not p»y any atts tion to him. " I Crosi-examined: Witness entered in his ur ra ! book every time he put the defendant off t r. I course. He had not the book with him. He pi I pared a report from these notes. It w»* abou 3D j quarter-past 1 when he first spoke to Dixon. le | Archibald Jloir stated that he was in charge r* i the gite at the ricecoi.rae during the race me "1 i iug near the people's stand. Defeudsnt came r- j tin "ate about 12 o'clock, but witness ruiicsed h '•s j admittance. He ■ was bickward ami forwa *• j several times, but he only asked once for adm II i tancK. He offered a shilling for admittance f3 I To Mr Sim: Witness referred to the 2J *' j February. :h j Constable Ward gave evidence also, atl Xi which sr Mr Haggitt intimated that that concluded t er ci.se for the prosecution. 16 At this stase, as the hour was late, it v c" dscided to adjourn. As Sir Sim would be T, 3 ' Naseby on Thursday n«xt, it was decided to ■"* ! the next hearing Cor Thursday, April 18. I