A BETTING CASE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17190, 18 December 1917, Page 7

A BETTING CASE

POLICE AGAINST LORD. .• - ft THE INFORMATION DISMISSED,

Mr H. A. Young, S.M., delivered his re- ' served judgment in tho betting, cose against Arthur Lord (Mr A. C. Hanlon) in the City Police Court yesterday. He said defendant" had been charged with oootravening section 2 (1) of "The Gaining Amendment Act,.. 1910, in that, on the 24th day of November. 1817, at -Dunedin, he did frequent a street for the purpose, of betting. At the. close of tho case for the prosecution Mr Hanlon contended that a prima facie oase had not been made out. The evidence

showed that at 9.15 pan. on the day con- , cerned police officers saw the defendant ' standing, in company -with two other men, near the Grand Hotel. They kept him under observation for about twelve minutes, during which time seven men approached him separately, eix- of them being with him a few seconds • only. One of these men counted out some silver and handed it to defendant; Two of thenrwent through the motions of giving .something to or reoeiving something from defendant. One man simply lit . a cigarette and remained with defendant and his two companions. Thfe police ocwldi not say whether anything took place between' defendant and the three other men; ; with respect to two of the latter, they said .that their view was oberucted by the movements ' of defendant's companions. There was, however, no . evidence to show that defendant directed these movements. The defendant was a bookmaker, and on the day concerncd the Takapuna races were run, and at 9 p.m. the acceptances for the Forbury Park trots were closed.' There was no evidence to show that these acceptances were made public at 9.15 p.m. There was no evidence to show that defendant was in the street on any other occasion; -if, however, he betted with the men who approached him he : was "frequenting " the street for the purpose of betting. He was asked to infer in the case of the man who paid money that it was a betting transaction. and in the case of the other men that

monev was paid or received in connection with betting transactions. He did not think , he could reasonably draw these inferences. The fact that defendant was a bookmaker and that raoes had iust been run in a distant paxt_ of" the_ dominion, would not justify him in inferring g-uilt -when all the other facts are so consistent with innocence. The TMilice '-.officer might have made a shrewd guess* but it was not for him to embark on a process of guesswork. The would .-therefore be dismissed.