BETTING PROSECUTION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16546, 20 November 1915, Page 3

BETTING PROSECUTION

SYDNEY WYNNE BEFORE COURT.

THE CHARGES DISMISSED.

A caso in which considerable interest was evidenced was be tore tlio City Police Court yesterday, wnon Sydney James Wynne was ctutrged with betting on tho licensed promises of the Grand Hotel on October 8, and also on October 9. Tho oases were heard before Mr J. 11. Bartholomew, S.M., mid the defence was conducted by Mr A. C. Ilanlon. Several discrepancies which counsel brought to light in the police evidence eventually led to both'charges being dismissed,. Sub-inspector Broberg prosecuted. JSerguant Thomson said he had known defendant from June 1909 to July 1912 us a bookmaker, and ho had known liirn again from the beginning of this year as a bookmaker. In cross-examination by Mr Hanlon, witness described tho habits of tho defendant, accosting men ; n tho street, dodging and avoiding the policc, and being particularly active on race days. It was common knowledge among tho police and tho publio that Wynno was a bookmaker. They knew from the defendant's general habits and his activities on nice days. Defendant had not given witness the opportunity of seeing him make a book. Constablo Craven said that about 10.30 a.m. on October 8 Constable Hart and he had been sent on plain clothcs duty. They visited tho Grand Hotel, and at 11.40 defendant went behind a screen and wrote something on a card. Witness was some fivo yards away. At noon defendant accepted money from an elderly man with a stoop. 'The old man whispered to defendant. Ten minutes later defendant accepted money from a man in the doorway as, witness was going oat. Wynno was moving about the hotel all the time. At a quarter to 2, in tho same bar, Wynne received some money shoved along to him, and he returned some money and made a not© on a card or book. Witness then went along and said, " What about 5s on Warstep?" Defendant said_ '"Right!" iWhat initials?" Witness replied " D. St. Glair," and defendant made a note on his card. Witness gave him two half-crowns. To Mr Hanlon: He did not know tho race Warstep ran in. It was understood tliat if Warstep won Wynne would pay "tote odds." Ho knew that bookmakers paid tote odds when nothing else was arranged. He did not know if there was any limit. Mr Hanlon cross-examined witness as to the contents of his notebook, and when and where the notes wore written. Constable Hart might have seen his notes, but ho had net. seen Constable Hart's notes. They had not in any way compared notes except that witness asked Haft about tho time. Constable Hart said that on October 8 last ho had gonO to the Grand Hotel in company with Constable Craven. He corroborated Constable Craven's statement as to defendant's movements and actions. At 10 minutes past 12 ho saw defendant accept a gold' coin at the hotel entrance'. To Mr Hanlon: He did not see the money, but he heard the coins jingle when the previous witness made the bet wibh defendant. Witness had left the police force nine months ago, and had rejoined it some six weeks ago. If Craven said that the two of them went into the Leviathan Hotel and made their notes in the same room witness would contradict him. Witness disagreed with Craven in certain other particulars as to the recording of the notes of the case. He had no recollection of going into the Leviathan Hotel with Craven at all. ' . Mr Hanlon submitted that the case must bo dismissed, i The evidence was highly unsatisfactory, \ and ae the statute under which the defendant was changed was highly penal, the court must be satisfied by the clearest and most oogent evidence before the defendant could be convicted. It was perfectly obvious that where the two constables gave evidence as to w^V. 00curred- in the hotel it was simplicity itself for them to go and Write down what was necessary to obtain a conviction, and then road these notes to the court. But as soon as they were cross-examined about matters beyond what they were prepared to swear to they were found to conflict most seriously. The fact was that one or < ther of tho constables was not telling the truth. One said he was invited by the other to go into tho Leviathan Hotel to make his notes, and the other said he did not remember inviting him. Hs had no recollection of being there. Such a statement was pure moonshine. It was impossible to; believe that Hart did not remember making notes in the Leviathan Hotel. As soon as their credibility! was tqsted by taking them outside what they were prepared for it was found that they were in conflict, and that one or other, or possibly both, had told, a lie in order to deceivo his Worship and to prejudice the defendant. ; His Worship said the defendant was ; a boolonaker, but he was in the same position as any other individual who came before tho court. The _ case against him must be proved by satisfactory evidence. Suspicion was not sufficient. The constables gave evidence of episodes which were alleged to have taken place between the defendant and certain other persons, and also' as to a transaction between Craven and defendant. Both constables agreed closely enough as to -what took place in the hotel. Each constable made notes of what had happened. A most material point was the circumstances ■ under which the notes were made. _ Craven said thatHart asked him to go into Lhe Leviathan Hotel for the purpose of writing up their notes. Hart said that the notes wore not made together; that he made_ his notes in the billiard room at tho Police Station. His Worship could see no reason for a witness having 110 recollection of whether he went to the Leviathan Hotel. The constables _ had given contradictory accounts of an incident 011 which there should have been no conflict Ho was not able to say which constable was reliable. He was not able to rely on their evidence as to the taking of the notes, and ho could not, therefore, accept their other evidence written down in their note books. 'For these reasons, therefore, the information must be dismissed. 1 The second charge relating to October 9 was then prooeedejJ with. Sergeant Thomson repeated the evidence given in the former case. Constable Craven stated that he had gone to the Grand Hotel on October 9 with Constable Hart. They saw defendant standing between two men and drinking with them. Witness saw defendant take money from one of the men and make a. note in a book. That was • at noon. A few minutes later witness hold out 5s as defendant was passing, and said "Five shillings on Silver Shield." Wynne accepted it, but handed it back and said, "Look, here, I don't know you, old man. Who introduced you to me?" Witness said, "You know Graham who sent me along to you when I put 5s on Warstep yesterday.' 1 He said "Oh, yes," and pulled witness to one side cut of hearing. He said, "Who's Graham?" Witness said "I don't know, I met him accidentally yesterday." Defendant said, "You will swear on your oath you are not a 'cop,' because it means a lot to me, old man, if I was caught." Witness said "Not likely ! I have just come down from Hamilton to see a brother of mine who is going away with the reinforcements." Wynno said ' Oh, yes; but you might easily como clown from Hamilton to catch me." Defendant seemed convinced, and took the ss, but said" ' can't do anv business with your friend over there. Who is he?" Witness said "He is a man I met yesterday from Christchurch.' - They returned, and defendant) said, "I can't do any business with you two men, as I don't know you.", 'That was said aloud for the benefit of Hart. Wynne then rejoined his companions. Witness understood that tho bet was at "tote odds." In answo to Mr Hanlon, witness said lie had been instructed by the sub-inspector that morning to act. Witness and Hart went into the Grand Hotel from High street. Tho only thin-* arranged was that witness should, if possible make a bet with defendant. Witness returned to the Police Station, and parted from Hart opposite the Leviathan Hotel As far as he knew, Hart did not have any notes to make on this case. Witness believed ho made his notes on the Sunday. Hart was not present when they were made, and witness had' not shown Hart tho notes. ' Constablo Hart gave evidence as to the visit paid by Constable Craven and himself to tho Grand Hotel on Octobcr 9. He heard Craven say to defendant ; "Five shillings on Silver Shield," and Craven handed defendant ;two half-crowns. Defendant took Craven aside, and they had u conversation, which witness did not hear. When they returned defendant said: "I can't do any business with you two men. I don't know you." Wynne then went, back to the two men with whom 'he had been before. Witness also repeated his account of what had happened the day before. Witness was severely crops-examined by Mr Hanlon as to his use of his notebook during his cxaminat : on-in-chief. He made his notes ori the Saturday, he said, in his room in the Leviathan Hotel after lunch. Mr Hanlon also traveisod the evidence given in the previous cas. l , and picked out certain discrepancies between witness's evidence and that given by Constable Craven. Ifis Worship said lie would not call on Mr Hanlon. The last witness seemed to have got hopelessly confused. Tho details 1 Constable Craven gave of the happenings on 1

the previous day were certainly impressive, | but the other witness differed in toto from that account The two differed on a most important point on which there should be no differcnco, and he could not say that I tiio evidence given by them on other points j was true. Tho information must bo dismissed.