ALLEGED "WELSHING."

Otago Witness, Issue 2955, 2 November 1910, Page 58

ALLEGED "WELSHING."

M'DUFF CONVICTED. WELLINGTON, October 26. At the Magistrate's Court to-day Victo.: M'Duff, alias Robert Walter Watson, a bookmaker, was charged with having committed theft on Trent-ham racecourse on Saturday of £1 from J. Marshall, £1 from J." North, £2 from George Murphy, £2 from Richard Ryan, and with- using obscene language. The evidence showed that the accused made bets in respect to Danube, winner of the Champion Stakee, but refused to accept tickete presented for payment. One witness stated that after betting, M'Duff signalled to a man behind the fence, at the earn© time putting a bundle of notes into his pocket. - He then backed against the fence and said to the other man, " Take it out of my pocket," and the other took the ffotes. "Then," said the witness, "I thought my money was gone." A bookmaker's bag was produced in court, which had a false front attached, inscribed, " Bob Watson (Tatts)." Under the false front was the following inscription, "Victor M'Duff, Auckland." Decision was reserved till Saturday. On the,charge of obscenity he was fined £3, with 10s costs, or 14 daye' imprisonment. October 30. Judgment was given by Mr W. G. Riddel], S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday in the police prosecution against an alleged " welshea- " named Victor M'Duff, alias Robert Walter Watson, who was arrested at the Trentham Racecourse on Saturday week on four charges of theft from persons who had invested with him. • One of these charges was withdrawn by the police on Wednesday, and another was dismissed during the hearing because of insufficient evidence to support a conviction. This was a case, said his Worship, where the defendant was charged with having stolen £l, the property of James Marshall, and £l, the property of J. North. The evidence showed that he was the depositary of certain sums of money in the Champion Plate: race, which was won by Danube. After the race wais decided tihe money would either remain in him or he would make certain payments to the depositors. These moneys could not be recovered by civii process in the event of the bookmaker refusing to repay, for the reason that it was against public policy to gamble, and, , further, a bet was an illegal contract under the Gaming Act. The question j whether the moneys could be recovered by civil process did not, in his opinion, affect the position, as by section 238 of the Crimes Act money was a thing cap- j able of being stolen. The Magistrate j looked at the facts in the light that the j defendant received these moneys on de- j posit, and his action all through, while I receiving the deposit and afterwards, in- I dicated a fraudulent intent. His Worship j was not prepared to say that at the I moment defendant received these deposits he had sufficient fraudulent intent to convict him of theft, but he would say that before the event was decided the defendant deliberately dispossessed himself of a certain part of these deposits, so that assuming that he had to return the deposits he did not have sufficient money to return had been handed to him. The inference his Worship drew was that at the time defendant dispossessed himself of the money he intended that a number of the depositors should not receive their depo6its, and also made up his mind that he intended to return only a certain number of deposits. The evidence showed that he made a remark to that effect. As soon~as the race was run he said to a number of his clients who were pressing for payment, " I am afraid I can only let you have your money back." That, said the Magistrate, was a lie—a statement which defendant knew to be. untrue, for the simple fact that he deliberately dispossessed himself of a certain amount of the deposits. There was insufficient money to enable each deposit to be returned. The Magistrate considered that that amounted to theft, and ■ that defendant must be convicted. M'Duff was sentenced to one month's imprisonment on each charge.

Mr M'Grath said that defendant was a man of considerable means, and had instructsd him to give notice of appeal in case of a conviction Counsel asked whether the magistrate had found any evidence of conversion or of any direct application for payment by either of the two complainants whose money was alleged to have been stolen. His Worship : Yes, I consider there was application with respect to one case —that of Marshall. I donbt if it is necessary, because there wae a personal application by Marshall and a refusal to pay- , Couseel hinted that M'Duff might have used his available money in paying out on races previous to the Champion Plate. and hhfit. because the money was handed over to someone else ibat was not proof of conversion. Security for appeal was fixed in the sum cf £lO 10s. and M'Daff was required

to produce a bond for £SO and two sureties of £25 each, or one of £SO, the appeal to be prosecuted with ali possible dispatch.