BETTING ON LICENSED PREMISES.

Otago Witness, Issue 3348, 15 May 1918, Page 20

BETTING ON LICENSED PREMISES.

A FINE OF £SO,

The only case before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., in the Dunedin Police Court on the 10th was the adjourned one in jyuiijj .Lyndon Ernest iiutueuge appeared to answer cjjl&rges of publishing a double chart and of bcttis* C'-l the licensed premises of the Grand Hotel oil AT> r *l »■ Mr Manlon appeared fci'-the defendant and entered a plea of guilty on tii? charge of betting on licensed premises. Chief Detective Bishop said that in view of this plea he proposed to offer no evidence on the former charge. The facts were that the Timaru races were run on April 11 and 12, and Const-able Coatsworth was instructed to watch bookmakers. On April 9 the constable made two distinct bets in the Grand Hotel with the defendant. Ho was a well known Dunedin bookmaker, but this was the first time he had been before the court. The Magistrate: Would you call him a small man or a big man? Chief Detective Bishop: He bets in a medium way. He is what we call a medium bettor. Mr Hanlon said defendant admitted that he made the two bets referred to. Of course, to lay doubles was perfectly legal in itself, but it was not legal to do it on licensed premises. It was.not a case of " tote " betting. Defendant was perfectly frank. He said he had been caught fairly and squarely, and was prepared to submit to whatever punishment the court saw fit to inflict. Counsel submitted that this was a legal form of betting, _ the only wrong being that it was done in a hotel. He submitted that a moderate penalty would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The Magistrate said that the business of bookmaking must be a fairly lucrative one, and it was one difficult of detection. The law laid down a minimum fine of £2O and a maximum one of £IOO. Defendant on the present charge would be fined £SO and court costs (7s). On the second_ information no ovidenco was offered, and it would bo dismissed.