RACING TELEGRAMS

Otago Witness, Issue 2565, 13 May 1903, Page 46

RACING TELEGRAMS

The particulars of a recent decision (of which the bare finding was cabled out some little time back) are gleaned by the latest English mail to hand, and the judgment given is characterised by the Londcai Sportsman as being an amazing one, and a ver-c-ict which savours strongly of a case cf killing being no murder. The case waa tried at Dumfries, Lord Young being the presiding judge, when Alexander John Hodkinson, a telegraph c.erk, of Newton Stewart post office, and John Morten, of Minuiga(F, Kirkcudbri;: htshire, were charged with having devised a fraudulent scheme to fabricate telegrams, pretending to make bonnfide bets on horse-races, and to send such telegrams after the races to which they referred had been run, retaining the telegrams, and altering them by erasing words and substituting others, and then inserting the post office code tiers, indicating that the telegrams had been handed in for transmission at houre different from those at which they had been actually hamded in. By this means, it was alleged, the accused induced Mr Daniel Maurice Gcmt, a bookmaiker, of Conduit street. Regent street, London, to pay to Morton various sums, amounting, it was stated, to over £100. There were 36 witnesses cited for the prosecution, but Lord Young threw out the whole case upon preliminary objections. liv a speech relating to gambling and betting transactions, his Lordehip said there never had been any practioe on the part of the oourts to institute criminal prosecutions for cheating at cards or any other system of gambling. BookmaAcrs by statute were prohibited from making- betting- transactions in advertised places, so that if the law took any cognisance of them at all, it was from the view of their being detrimental to the public interests. He took the aot to mean that fraud of the nature here alleged referred to interference with commercial telegrams, and not to betting transactions. The post office clerk probably committed an irregularity against the rules of the service, and probably might be punished by dismissal, but the whole case was outside the criminal court. In a note referring to the decision the London Sportsman said :—" Whatever may now be the bookmaker's status in Scotland, whore once he nourished mightily, in England and under Enelish law he is not the pariali that. Lord Young's reading of the Statute Book wonld make him in the North. Orhpr notice is taken of him than merely as ' bfinc detrimental to -public interests.' The Act Band 9 Vie. c 109. 17, mad.?:— ' Evfry prison who filial! by any fraud or unlawful device or ill-practice im watering on the event of any gamp, <=port, p?*time, or exercise, ivin from any othor person to himself or others any am\ of monry or valuable thing, shall bo dp-emcrl pniilty of obtaining the same by a fahe nrr>t<*nro. with inlent (■o cheat or fh fraud such person." In Scotland, if Lord Ynmi is a «n;nd imrrrpretor nf thp ]nw. no protection at aH ie afforded. So much the greater fihame, then, to Scotch law.' 1