THE GAMING ACT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3003, 4 October 1911, Page 58

THE GAMING ACT.

LETTING CASE AT- ASHBURTON. ASH BURTON, September 29. At the Magistrate's Coui't to-dav before Mr V. G. Day, S.M., William Whitta, bookmaker and land and estate agent, * Ohristchurch, was charged on the infor mation of the police with having committed a breach of the Gaming Act by loitering in a public place for the purpose of soliciting bete on the Racecourse road, opposite the Ashburton Racecourse, on September -14 and ,15. Whitta was represented by Mr J. A. Cassidy,- and pleaded " Not,guilty." The polios led evidence to show that 1 defendant loitered about the gates of the course on both days. - Their witnesses said that they saw a stream of people continually going.to and from the gates, presumably for the '. pose of speaking to defendant- 'The witnesses (who included Detective Osborne and . Racecourse Detective did not actually see what took place, as defendant invariably concealed his actions. Sergeant Fouhy deposed that he saw a man named Murray put his hand in his pocket, take out something (presumably cash), and hand it to defendant. Other witnesses told of similar suspicious actions, and emphasised, the fact that defendant concealed his actions, which, for the most part, were most suspicious. Mr Oassidy submitted that there was no case to answer, and the prosecution must faill. The evidence adduced was suggestive only, and the prosecution desired his Worship to draw an inference. His client had come to Ashburton merely to watch the races. If the prosecution was upheld, it would mean that it would not be safe for a bookmaker, should he desire to strictly comply with the provisions of the act, to leave his own premises to go into public, as it was possible for bookmakers to solicit or accept bets on the Ashburton races in Christchurch. The Magistrate ruled that there was a case to answer. Whitta, who was a bookmaker, came to Ashburton, and it could only be assumed that he came expressly j for the purpose of following his vocation. Several witnesses -were called by the de- , fence to prove that though Whitta was generally observed, there appeared to be nothing suspicious about his actions. From the witness box Whitta said that he visited Ashburton on September 14 and 15 as be took a great interest in racing generally, and he watched the races from"the road. He could say positively that he never booked a bet or accepted a shilling from anyone during the meeting. He contended that it was outrageous to think that because a man had been a bookmaker that be could not speak to another person. during the progress of a race meeting without contracting a betting transaction. If this was the law it would be better to ostracise the bookmakers to the North Pole. He knew that he was not allowed on a racecourse. He was in Ashburton on business distinctly, apart from racing. j _ The Magistrate said that he would enter up a conviction against defendant for both days. For the first day of the meeting Whitta would be convicted and discharged, but for the second day a fine of £SO and full court costs (£3 19s 8d) would be inflicted. The evidence of the prosecution certainly allowed of a certain inference to be taken, but no. satisfactory evidence had been given by the defence to show why Whitta had visited-Ashburton. The fact that people repeatedly interviewed Whitta on the road and then went back to the course allowed of only one inference, and that was that Whitta was loitering on the road for the purpose of soliciting bets. In reply to Mr Caasidy, his Worship said he would fix security for appeal at £lO 10s.