CHARGES OF BOOKMAKING.

Otago Witness, Issue 3823, 21 June 1927, Page 28

CHARGES OF BOOKMAKING.

DEFENDANTS COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. In the City Police Court on Friday before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., two Dunedin men were charged with bookmaking. In both cases the evidence showed that the defendants had been approached by the detectives in the bars of city hotels. Thomas Butler was charged with carrying on the business of a bookmaker at Dunedin on June 3. He pleaded not guilty and elected to be tried by jury.— Chief Detective Cameron represented "the police and Mr W. G. Hay appeared for the defendant. Detective Lean said he visited the Carlton Hotel on June 3, when they saw the defendant through the bar door. The chief detective called defendant into the passage and asked him if he had a double goingthat day, whereupon the defendant candidly admitted that he had. When witness examined the book he found a number of entries referring to the races held that -day.— Mr Hay objected to the evidence, stating that the book could speak for itself.

The Chief Detective: If Mr Hay would not interrupt we would get on quite nicely. Mr Hay: I will not interrupt as long as you keep within proper limits. Continuing, witness referred to the book and quoted odds at 100 to 2. “I must object again,’’ said Mr Hay. “The construction of this entry is a matter for the court.’’

t The Magistrate: It does not take much to construe that, Mr Hay. Witness added that he was acquainted with the system usually adopted by bookmakers, and the book was consistent with that system. Mr Hay asked, at this stage, that all witnesses be ordered to leave the court.

The Chief Detective: Well, lam a witness,- but I am prosecuting, and I can’t very well leave the court. All the other witnesses were ordered out of the court by the magistrate. The interrupted examination was continued, and witness referred to various entries in the book.

Mr Hay further objected to the detective referring to the Book, but this was allowed by the Bench. Opposite one entry in the book were the initials “H.H.,” and Hcon Hay was a horse in the race to which the entry appeared to refer. Other entries, the amounts and the various meetings were outlined.

“I object to this evidence as being hearsay,’’ said Mr Hay. “It’s a question of common sense,” said the Magistrate. Mr Hay : But I am entitled to ask the witness how he got his experience. If your Worship was in the box I could ask you the same thing. Mr Hay’s objection was noted. Chief Detective Cameron, who was present on June 3 with Detective Lean, corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. On the morning of June 4 he had received a request by telephone from defendant, who wished to be allowed to see his book. Witness told him that as far as could be seen, he had a “skinner,” and he asked to be allowed to take a few notes to see how he stood. He kept the appointment and took a few notes. Defendant pleaded not guilty, and reserved bis defence.

Bail was fixed on one surety of £2OO. David Thomas Pearson, foj whom Mr A G. Neill appeared, was also charged with bookmaking, and pleaded not guilty. He elected to be tried by jury. Chief Detective Cameron said that on June. 3 last, in company with Detective Lean, he went to the Prince of Wales Hotel. He saw defendant standing in the bar with a cheque book in one hand, and what appeared to be a pencil in the other. Witness subsequently interviewed defendant in the office of the hotel, and defen-

dant handed over a race book, and nine day cards for the races that were, being held that day at Auckland, Christchurch, Otaki, and Dunedin. On one of the cards certain sums and the names of horses were written. By the official programme (produced) it could be seen that these horses started on June 3. A further entry on the card was the word “Grid,” which appeared to indicate a man making a bet. “That,’’ said Mr Neill, “is hardly fair—the- word ‘Grid’ might mean anything. It might, for instance, mean the Gridiron Hotel.”

“It very probably does,” agreed thq chief detective drily, and went on to pro? duce further cards and race books which had been found in defendant’s possession’ along with what appeared to be memoranda of betting transactions. At this point Mr Neill again objected to the evidence, and pointed out that therq was no certainty that these memoranda, applied necessarily to the meeting mentioned on the cards, or that they even indicated that defendant had been making a book. Continuing, witness said that when he interviewed defendant, the latter admitted that he had taken a few bets that morning. Witness’s assertion that defendant was a bookmaker, drew another vigorous objection from Mr Neill, who said that this was not evidence. There was no evidence to show that Pearson bad been betting sys tem atica 11 y. “You mean,” said the Magistrate to witness, “that defendant is a reputed bookmaker’’’ ' “No,” replied witness. “I will go further than that and say he is a bookmaker, and was convicted of street betting in this court on March 5 of this year. Further, he informed me about the time he was before the court on that occasion that he was a member of the Dominion Sportsmen’s Association, which is an association of bookmakers.” Detective Lean gave evidence of having seen defendant on the morning in question, as the latter was about to write out a cheque in the bar of the Prince of Wales Hotel. The remainder of his evidence was corroborative of that of the previous witness. Accused reserved hi s defence, and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was allowed in self £2OO and one surety of £2OO.