BOOKMAKING ALLEGED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22630, 23 July 1935, Page 2

BOOKMAKING ALLEGED

TOBACCONIST BEFORE COURT MAGISTRATE DISMISSES CHARGE Charges of conducting a common gaming house and, alternatively, of carrying on the business of a bookmaker, were preferred against Walter Richard Samsbury before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., in the City Police Court yesterday morning. The defendant, who was represented by Mr E. J. Anderson, pleaded not guilty to each charge. Chief-detective Young said that the defendant was charged with using his premises, 260 Princes street, as a common gaming house, and he was also charged with carrying on the business of a bookmaker. The defendant was a tobacconist and hairdresser, with premises at the location already mentioned,. On July 4, Temporary Constable Thompson, who had been specially sent to Dunedin to inquire into the activities of bookmakers, went to the defendant’s shop, where he had a shave. A discussion was carried on between the constable and the defendant, with particular regard to horse-racing, and the defendant produced a double chart for the forthcoming ra!& meeting at Wellington. The constable backed Billy Boy and Guarantee for a double at 50 to 1, and paid the defendant half a crown, and then he took another double at 40 backing Guarantee and Lycidas. The defendant marked the bets down on scraps of paper and put the money in a tobacco tin. On July 8 the constable made further bets with the defendant, taking a double on Merry Peel and Silver Sight, as well as straight-out bets of five shillings each on Reminder and Gold Fox, which were also running at Wellington. On Saturday, July 13, the constable again saw the defendant, who said that he was not doing any more betting, that he had only done so to oblige customers, and that he did not make anything out of the transactions. A search warrant was executed by Detective-sergeant Doyle and Detective Le Sueur on the same day and some betting slips were found in the defendant’s shop. He said that he had been taking bets for customers for about two or three months, and that he had now finished. It was not contended that the defendant had been operating in a large way, but that he was acting as an agent for a bookmaker and that he therefore laid himself open to a charge of bookmaking. The constable, who *hvas a stranger to the defendant, was able to make bets without any difficulty, which would seem to prove that the defendant was carrying on the business of a bookEvidence on the same lines as the chief detective’s statement was given by Temporary Constable Thompson. Crossexamined bv Mr Anderson witness said he opened the conversation with the defendant regarding racing and produced a doubles’ chart on the Wellington meeting. He denied having made any remark to the effect that he was not a policeman, and said that that subject bad not been mentioned. . Detective le Sueur said that on tlie morning of July 13. in company with Detective Sergeant Doyle, he executed a search warrant on the defendants premises at 200 Princes street. The defendant was then in the saloon attending to a customer. Detective Sergeant Doyle explained the nature of their business, and the defendant said they would fine* nothing there. When the search was made two slips of paper, bearing the names of horses racing at Wellington, were found in the pocket of an- overcoat at the back of the shop. The defendant said to Detective Sergeant Doyle that he had been taking bets tor the past two or three months for some of his customers. He made nothing out of the transactions and only passed them on. tie also said he had now stopped taking bets. To Mr Anderson witness said that the overcoat in which the betting slips were found was lying over some boxes at the back of the shop, Samsbury did not say that it was not his own coat. Witness heard no beta being made while lie was there, and he saw no telephone in the Mr Anderson submitted that on the evidence before the court the charge of keeping a common gaming house could not be sustained, and, the magistrate concurring, the prosecution withdrew this charge. Continuing, Mr Anderson said that the bets were made with Constable Thompson, who went in as a customer. Sainsbury took bis bets as an obhgement, and said that he was getting nothing out of the transactions. Counsel suggested that there was inadequate evidence to show that the defendant was carrying on business as a bookmaker. If be '' el ® obliging customers by taking bets, that did not make him a bookmaker, and no system of belting was proved, as the case of the betting with Constable Ihompson was an isolated one. There was also no evidence to show that the overcoat, in which the two betting slips were found, was Sainsbury a. He submitted that the evidence was not sufficient to establish a course of conduct as a bookmaker. The magistrate said that the question was whether it had been proved that the defendant was the agent of a bookmaker, as it was clear that the evidence did not substantiate the charge of carrying on business as a bookmaker. When the search warrant was executed nothing was found except two slips, which were not of very great value. There was no evidence of any persons frequenting the shop for the purpose of betting, and as the evidence of isolated bets was not sufficient to establish the charge of carrying on the business of a bookmaker or acting as the agent for a bookmaker, the charge would be dismissed.