"TWO-UP" PROSECUTION

Otago Witness, Issue 2782, 10 July 1907, Page 12

" TWO-UP " PROSECUTION

THE CASE DISMISSED. At the City Police Court on June 28, before Mr H. Y. Widdowscn, S.M., Wm. Higgkison was charged with having on March 31 played a game of chance known as "Two up" in a public place. Chief -detective Herbert prosecuted, and Mr A. C Hanlon appeared for the accused, who pleaded '"Not guilty." : Detective Herbert said thi a charge | arose out of a case heard against a man | named Scott, in which several witnesses who were called at a> hearing of an appeal by Scott gave evidence in the Supreme Court. The witnesses were summoned now in consequence of statements made in the higher court on oath against the present accused. Wm. Hore, butcher, said he knew the accused slightly, and he remembered the hearing of the charge against Scott in the Supreme Court about a week previously. IT© had be-en in Mr Solomon's office, but did not see the accused there. On th* afternoon of March 31, witness was at IfOgan'e Point together with several other men — between 20 and 30. He was not positive that the accused was one of them. Witness could not swear that the accused was there. Detective Herbert : Do you swear that ? Witness : I will swear anything you. tell me. Detective Herbert: That will do. Mr Hanlon : A convenient -witness. No questions. Henry Smith, blacksmith, said he wae at Logan's Point on the date in question. He saw the last witness there and Higginson also. A game of " two-up " was proceeding. H© saw no money lost or won. He could not see whether the accused was betting there or not. Detective Herbert asked leave to question thia witncee about his evidence at the Supreme Court. Witness had given certain evidence there a-nd his memory must be as good now as it was then. The Magistrate: I oannot do that at this stage. Detective Herbert: You cannot say ■whether the accused bet or not? Witness : No. Did you see any betting at all? — Yes, there was some betting. Do you know whether any person won or lost money? — I heard that Higginson won money — that is all. The Magistrate: I cannot take that. Detective Herbert: Did you ever swear that Higginson won money? Mr Hanlon : I object to that. Detective Herbert: Dtid you ccc the accused thore ? Witness : I never noticed him at all. He was lying on the bank when I noticed him first. The Magistrate: What is your answer? Witness: I never noticed him there until I .10-w him lying on the bank. Witness had seen accused again aifter the detectives arrived. Accused was on the road down near the bridge thfcn. Detective Herbert: Can you say whether Hipginson won money or not? j Witness : I cannot say for sure. I heard he won money. I never saw him having a bet with any person. I had not any conversation with him. that day. He has never spoken to me about the caso. j Deteotive Herbert asked leave to treat the witness as hostile. Mr Hanlon objected. The -witness's memory had not failed him. Before the witness could be- contradicted with a ! statement previously made the prosecution ' must bring itself within the terms of the Evidence Act. It had not done co. Detective Herbert said he suggested that the witness was hostile in view of the ' previous evidence he had given in the Supreme Court. The witness had sworn the direct opposite then, and the charge related to the same circumstances. He (Detective Herbert) wanted to ask witness if he had not sworn differently. Mr Hanlon: You have not shown that ho is hostile. j Detective Herbert said this game was f being pla%ed, and some 25 or 30 men were , concerned. The police 'surprised them ! and ihev all ran away, and as a result of | tho police obser\ at ions a man named ' Scott was pro=oeuted. Then all these \vitnc-se° had been called in defence of | Scott, and they pi'ov-od at the defence that Scott v.as not playing, but that accused was, and won all the money. Accordingly the accused was charged, and those witnesses were called to repeat the evidence they had given in the higher ocurt. Now, however, they were contradicting their j «-perioua testimony i

The Magistrate: Did they say that accused was playing:? Detective Herbert: Yes. Higgineon was a witness and he was asked the question, but pleaded privilege. , Mr Hanlon : Supposing you do treat him a3 hostile you only show x he is absolutely unreliable, and you impeach the credit of j youT own witnesses. Detective Herbert: I ask the court, in view of all the circumstances, whether these men ihave not some interest in shielding eacih other. They apparently did not anticipate when Scott wag charged that there would be aijy further prosecution. Mr Hanlon: Witness said he heard that Higginson won all "the money. That is not what he 'swore at the other" oouH. I say Detective Herbert has not brought himself within the terms of the act. Can the court be satiefied from the demeanour of this witness that he is hostile and comes" here apparently to tell lies in favour of the accused ? That is what the court must be satisfied about. There must be 6Ome outward signs of hostility. The Magistrate : I oannot treat the witness as hostile. Dctootive Herbert : Very well. I -will call all the witnesses who gave evidence in the other court. Samuel Harvey, labourer, said he was present together with the accused and the last two witnesses. He saw a game being played. They said it was " two-up." Ho had been there two or three times before. Detective Herbert : Did they say it was " two-up" ? Witness said he was not sure. The Magistrate : It is no use being too innocent about this kind of thing. Ie it played with dice or cards or what ? Witness : It is played with pennies. Detective Herbert : Was the accused j playing ? j Witness said he could not swear. He might either have been looking on or playing. Detective Herbert : Did you give evidence a* the other court ? Mr Hanlon : I object to that. Witness, continuing, said he reached the ecene about 2 p.m., and he noticed Higginson half or three-quartere of an hour afterwards. Once he noticed accused lying on the bank, and once down amongst the school. He would not swear Higginson played, and he would not swear that he did not play. The magistrate asked for some information as to how the game was played. Detective Herbert : Where does the man with the "kip" stand? Witness : He stands in the centre, and the others stand all round in a ring. ■ ! Then pome may bet a-nd some may not ?—? — ' Everybody does not bet. They could if they wanted to. Detective Herbert : I ask to be permitted to ask the witness about an answer he gave in the Supreme Court. Mr Hanlon : I object. Richard Matthews, moulder, said he reached the school about 4 p.m., and he was there until the police came, whon he , ran away. H<? would not swear that he ' <=aw the accused thore, because he did not know him well enough. Ho could not swear that any of the other men were there. , Detective Herbert : Was Scott there? i Witness: Yes, I saw Scof.t. Can you say that accused took any part in the crame 7 — lie might or he might not have. I could not swear it. I Thomas Smith, engine driver a.t the ' quaj-ry, was next called, and was asked if he had seen accused. Witness : I saw him there. I only know him by eight. Detective Herbert : Well, I know a good many men by eight. Mr Hanlon : It is your business to know them. Detective Herbert : And yours, too. Witness said it was about half-past 3 when he arrived, but he could not swear exaptly. He saw the other witnesses there. Smith (a namesake) and Higginson were standing round the ring trying to get bete I on. He saw no betting transaction take j place between them. He could not swear j that they succeeded. He could not swear about betting. Witness was taking hia dog for a run, and was there half an hour. He saw no bets. Deteotive M'Leod said that when he visited the locality a number of men were playing " two-up." He heard wageringgoing on — " A sovereign you cannot head them" and "Half a crown you can't," I and similar expressions. When he ap- ! pioached, together with Detective Hunt, j the men all ran away. He could not swear J < that he saw accused, ' <

Mr Hanlon : I submit th«r« is no oaoe to answer. The Magistrate: The case will Be di»« miesed.