PLACE-BETTING PROSECUTIONS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2732, 18 July 1906, Page 54

PLACE-BETTING PROSECUTIONS.

ALL CHARGES DISMISSED. Mr H. Y. Widaowson, S.M., do ivered judg ni«nt on the 10th at the City Police Court ii the recently-heard charge against Geo. Spiers tha-t, on May 12, he did use a place, the roai adjoining Tahuna Park racecourse and con tiguous ,to a fence enclosing the course, an< did unlawfully use the saad place for the pur pose of betting with persons resorting theret< upon certain events and contingencies of, an< relating to, certain hors* races. — Mr A. C Hanlon fox defendant. Judgment v/as a.s follows: — "From the cvi dence adduced in support, it appears that oi the day in question a race meeting was bein; held in Tahuna, Park. The defendant is i reputed bookmaker and was sia-ndarig on i kerosene tin at a certain spc-t at the eide o Tfchuna Park road which runs alongside th< pwk. and is bounded from it by an iron fence Several persons were seen during the after noon to come from the park to the fence opposite to where defendant was standingand over which he was reaching, put some thing into his hand a.nd go away aga.n. Tin something, according to two of the witne=sc-: was silver, which the defendant put lr/o hi= pocket. After each transaction defendant mad* a note, or entry, in what appeared to be s book, fund e?ch transaction took p!ac« at the visual time before each race, when betting is done. The defendant was one among several alleged bookmakers and guessers standing along the roadside of the fence on kerosene tins, and doing the same thing. Kraetzer also aays that he saw »nme people come up afterwards and receive some+hing from defendant, winch they pocketed on leaving him. "When the detectives went out on to the road, the defendant, among others, ran away. The witnesses were about, 24 yards from defendant, but where they could practically &c* all that went on. But none of them heard the defendant, or any of the others, say anything about betting, nor was there any advertising, crying the odds, giving cards to -the persons who went to them, etc. Defendant's counsel contends that the case must be disniiaped ou the following grr.unds.— (l) Th».t the information is too vague as to the 'place'; (2) that there is no evidence, or not sufficient evidence as to betting having been carried on; (3) that there cannot be «aid to have bsen any resorting to vhe place by any person, as the- place where th# defendant stood wa-s cut off by the iron fences The law ha<? now been fairly well settled, and I do not propose to po n'to it at any length. I propose, in the first p'.sfe, to consider the question of betting — '.c the character of the user of the place. Upon that point it is instructive to notice the judgments in the lat-est English case. Brown v. Pp*ch. An extract from each of the sudgnien(s will sufface. J>arling, J., iiys — ' I think it ;h &ufficiant to satisfy the statute if ££• in tins case, a man who was admittedly going t-^ bot with any persons who mig-h* come and bet with him had localised Ins buiinps.s for the purpose of betting on the spot which lie bad selected for -the purpose of c&rrvine on his basinesa, €*c ' And Channell. J 'In each caae the facts mu»t be looked at to see . . . whether he is iising it (i c., the bamboo stage, umbrella etc ) to indicate that there is a place at which the business of betting ii carried on by him. and to which poople can g > for the purpose of betting with him.' And again ■ ' In the present caae. I Hunk the fact,s a.c sufficient to bring it wiMnn' the statute j.n 1 that rbe inference ought lo be drawn that •what '.be i - e9pondc-nt d'd was n^t merely ind'cating that ho was a man prepared to bet with anybody who would bet with him but it .vas indicating that he w»s using that c'.aco 0 9 f. p. ace where he oould be found, and v?xs carrying on his business.' It is therefore incumbent upon the proaec'ion, sva one of tlxe first ingredients oi the caae, to prove that the business of betting was carried on In each of the authonties that has either been admitted c-r proved. Ir. its present case, caa it

en be said to have been done? If I am forced be by the fa-ots to the conclusion that betting at took place, then I must hold it proved, but to if any other answer can be given, or there is ub *ny reasonable doubt, 1 cannot do so. Tha ,jj.. court cannot proceed upon suggestion or sush picion, however strong. In the present cas«, x I am bound to hold that the facts do not con> .% clusively establish- the betting, that is to say, £ d th*t the pluce was used for the puipos» of " c betting. It is not, therefore, necessary for •"•" me to discuss the other questions, but I may "i say that if I had been affirmatively satisfied to oi the point already, I would certainly have convicted. The case would be dismissed. Tha ig decision would apply to the cases as a whole." id i ________ as i