DEFAULTING BOOKMAKERS' TROUBLE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2967, 25 January 1911, Page 57

DEFAULTING BOOKMAKERS' TROUBLE.

CHARGED WITH THEFT. WELLINGTON, January 18. Tire appeal of Victor M. Duff, a bookmaker, whose actions at the October race meeting at Trenthanr caused him to come into conflict with tbs authorities, was heard in the Supreme Court to-day, before his Honor Mr Justice Chapman. The information heard in the lower court alleged that Duff committed the theft of £l, the property of James Marshall, and defendant was convicted by Mr Riddell, S.M., and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment. It was shown that defendant was acting under the assumed name of “ Bob Watson,” and received 40 or 50 bets on Danube in tire Champion Plate. Danube

won, and defendant announced that foe would not pay out. but would refund tho moneys •entrusted to him. He, however, declined to pay Marshall and North, another investor. There was a disturbance, and someone, not identified; put his hand in defendant'? pocket and took all the money away without resistance or complaint. The magistrate found that the money handed b\ Marshall and North to defendant was capable of being stolen, although it could not be recovered from him by civil process, and that in the ordinary course defendant would, but for acting in the mar.nei' he did, have had sufficient after the race to repay aD investors who had backed Danube. Further, the magistrate decided that defendant, in permitting a-third party to take from him money handed to him by investors, was guilty oi a fraudulent act, and that his acts genera :ly amounted tc theft. Mr A. L. Herdman appeared on behalf of appellant, and Mr H. H. Ostler for the Crown. Mr Herdman quoted authorities with a view to showing that before the conviction could be affirmed it had to be proved that Hie owner of the goods did not intend to pass possession to appellant., and that there had also to be evidence to show that at the time Duff received the money he formed an intention to steal. On the evidence submitted to the magistrate, he contended no such intention was shown. He had, on the contrary, stated after the race that he was Milling to return the money invested with him. If he had been left alone and not touched*, it was quite possible that he would have returned" Marshall his pound. In reply. Mr Ostler said every allowance had to be made by the court in favour of fiie magistrate's findings. In this case the magistrate had found that appellant had proved an intention to steal. His Honor: When? Mr Ostler: I submit that it does not matter. It may be formed at any time.' As a matter of fact, I submit that the magistrate found as a fact that Duff formed the intention to steal at the time he received the deposits. The money, he argued, did not pass to defendant "until the event on which it was invested was decided. That was clearly laid down in the Buck master case. Had it not been for Mr Justice Edwards's decision in the Wanganui .action the case would have been unarguable. His Honor had failed to find that there was any evidence of fraudulentintention. In this case the court was relieved from that embarrassment by the' fact that the magistrate had distinct!; found a fraudulent intension. After hearing further lengthy legal argu ment, his Honor reserved his decision.