ANOTHER TOTALIZATOR CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 1880, 2 December 1887, Page 25

ANOTHER TOTALIZATOR CASE.

At the City Police Court an Thursday morning, before Messrs G. E. Eliott and A. Bartleman, J.P's., Alexander Moss was charged, on the information of Edward M'Ginty and thr.ee others, with that on the Ist November, at Dunedin, he did unlawfully conducjt a certain scheme by which prizes of money were competed for by a mode of chance. — Accused was undefended, and pleaded Guilty. — Detective " Henderson conducted the case for the prosecution. Detective Henderson said that though accused had pleaded guilty, he was instructed to say that this was a rather aggravated case; and the investors were aggrieved at being taken in in the matter. He did not know whether they woulr hear one of the witnesses to show the differenci between this case and ordinary cases of th< kind. i The Bench thought that though he had pleaded guilty somo evidence should be offered, Deteotive Henderson said the feots wer*. these : The defendant, Mr Moss, waa a,sobaoco nist, carrying on business in Princes street, an< on the Ist of this month he opened what wa called a totalisator, on tbe Melbourne Cup race, to be ran on that day. The result of the rac<* was that a horse called D.unlop won. It w»-. understood by investors, and also by tho defend ant, that'thb totalisator was t» close at 5 o'olool , sharp, so that op to that time it wou\d be almos*

impossible ,tb*t the result of the race would be known here. The shares were 5s each, and one of the witnesses, who invested his money on Dunlop in the morning, called on the defendant about 20 minutes past 5 in the evening. The witness, Edward M'Ginty, .asked how many per* sons had invested on DuDlop, and defendant marked a card with " seven." This was about SO minutes past 5, and about 40 minutes later the result of the race was known. Those who had invested on the horse went to defendant's Bhop> and they were told that 11 persons had invested on him. The investors got a dividend of £3 15s instead of £5 18s. Some £15 the defendant would receive over his usual commission. k Edward M'Ginty, insurance agent, stated that he knew the defendant. He called at defendant's shop on the Ist of the month, a little after dinner time. He went there to give him 5s to be put on the horse Dunlop. Defendant put it down in a book. It was understood that the totalisator would close at 5 o'clock. He called a little after 5 to see how many investors there, were on Dunlop. He was told there were seven investors, and the defendant put the seven on a card (produced) opposite the mime of Dunlop. A little after 6 he heard the result of the race. He went to the defendant's shop the following morning. He told witness that he would pay £3 155, there being 11 investors. He told him that a man had put four chances on and that he had made a, mistake. It made a difference of £2 3s to him and the others. Detective Henderson said he could produce other witnesses, who would give similar evidence, if their Worships thought it necessary. The Bench decided not to have them called. Detective Henderson said he wna not a\?are of the witness having used the totalisator before. The Bench retired, and on their return intimated that the case seemed to be a particularly bad one, and the fine would be substantial. Accused would be fined £40 and costs; in default, distress; if insufficient distress, two months' imprisonment with hard labour. The accused asked if be could say anything. Mr Bliott : You are too late. One week was conceded to the defendant in which to pay the fine.