PROTECTING WITNESSES IN GAMING CASES.

Otago Witness, Issue 2355, 13 April 1899, Page 35

PROTECTING WITNESSES IN GAMING CASES.

Mr Poynton, the stipendiary magistrate down south, gave an indemnifying certificate to a witness in a gaming case hoard last week. The persons charged were Francis O'Raw and John Sinnott, they being brought up on Uiree informations alleging that they laid totalisator odds at Riverton on Easter Monday. The Southland Timos' report states that Detective Sl'llveney deposed that defendants were moving suspiciously am*ng the crowd on the racecourse and making entries in a book. After the third race saw O'Raw working out a calculation in a book, apparently from figures on the totalisator. Witness demanded to see the books, and Sonnott handed him two. They a»ked him to give them a nhow, and that they would stop it and clear off the course. After Fome eonverriation they agreed to pay back £4- odd to investors, and he told them he would consider what should be done. The entries in the books " showed that they had paid out totalisator odds. They were not doing straight-out betting. Constables M'Auliffe and Walke. gave corroborative evidence. George Mason, the next witness, asked by the sergeant if he had laid totalizator odds with the accused, refused to answer the question on the ground that by doing so he would incriminate himself. The sergeant pointed out that the witness was bound to answer, and that the court had power to indemnify him. According to clause 1 of " The Gaming Act, 1894-," that act was to be read and construed as a part of "The Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1681," clause 30 of which empowered the granting of a certificate of indemnity to any person who, being examined as a witness!. shall make true and faithful discovery to the beßt of his knowledge of all things as to which he is so examined." His Worship informed the witness that if he made a true statement he would get a certificate from him which would exonerate him from any penalties he may have incurred. The witness then proceeded to give evidence, stating that he had not taken tote odds ; that he made a straight-out bet. Another witness stated that he gave accused money to put on various horses. There was no mention of how they were going to pay but got a bet according to twtalisator rate. Francis O'Raw deposed that he did no tote betting on the Riverton course. He was doing straight-out betting. The detective told him that if he was laying straight out he would not interfere. John Sinnott. clerk to O'Raw, deposed that he had nothing to do with the money. O'Raw engaged him in Dunedin to go to Riverton ; he was to bo paid 10s per day and expenses. His Worship convicted and discharged accused on the first charge, and fined them £5 on each of tho other two, with costs — in all £10 163 6d each, and allowed them till the following morning to pay; in default, one month's imprisonment.

Mr Maealister applied for the books in pos-^ session of the police, but his Worship deferred decision on that point.