BOOKMAKING CHARGES.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LII, Issue 16969, 26 February 1926, Page 5

BOOKMAKING CHARGES.

POLICE PROVE STREET BETTING OFFENCES. . HEAVY FINES IMPOSED. ' The hearing of the bookmaking charges against Chas. Croon and Arthur Okven, attracted a largo crowd to the Gisborne Magistrate’s Court to-day, and the proceedings were followed with the greatest interest. The police were successful in proving that Croon had boon guilty of street betting and the publication of doubles charts, securing convictions on five counts. Counsel raised a question in regard to the interpretation of the section of the Act under which the double chart information was .laid, and the Magistrate agreed that a ruling on the point would be interesting. The street betting charges against G'wcn resting on similar evidence to those against Croon, Owen pleaded , guilty to street betting, on two informations, but pleaded not guilty to the charge of keeping a common gaming house. By permission of the Magistrate, the charge relating to the charts was hold over, and n.ftar hearing evidence, accused was acquitted on the more serious charge. *- The fines totalled £3CO. / BOOKMAKING CASES.

That he did on February 17, 19 and 20, frequent a public place, to wit Gladstone road, for tho purpose of betting, and that he did. on February 19 and 20, publish a double chart, were the charges preferred against Charles Croon, while Arthur Owen was faced with having frequented Gladstone road, a public place, for betting purposes, publishing a double chart, and with keeping i and using certain promises, to wit, a tobacconist’s shop conducted under tho name of Arthur Owen, tobacconist and hairdressing saloon, as a common gaming house. Mr. L. T. Burnard appeared for the accused, and Detective McLeod conducted tho : case for the police. CASE AGAINST CROON.

The charges against Croon were taken first. Detective McLeod outlined’ the ease against accused, staling that a, police constable named Campin had been sent from Wellington on special duty, this being tho prevention of betting. 110 had taken a job here, after reporting to Inspector Cameron, and lie later attended a “two-up school,” where lie became acquainted with the accused. He later obtained the evidence upon which these proceedings were based. CONSTABLE’S INVESTMENTS. Constable Campin said that lie had been detailed from Wellington for special duty, and had been assigned by Inspector Cameron to secure evidence of betting by Croon and Owen. Do got employment at the gasworks, and later attended the “two-up school,” where he met Croon. Subsequently, on February 16. he met Croon, and asked him for a double-card on the Tolaga races. Croon said the cards were not yet ready for Tolaga, but gave him a double chart and day cards for the Wanganui meeting. Next day he got a double chart and a day card for the Tolaga races, and made, bets with Croon, as follows: £1 on Kenyon and 10s on Nightsong at Tolaga, and 10s on the Star-Ranger-Hypo double at Wanganui. Later on he met Croon, and tho latter said to him: “£1 and 10s, wasn’t it?” Witness replied that it was, and he was given a certain sum, accused stating that there was a limit, owing to it being onlv a five-horso race. Witness gave details of other transactions with thq accused Croon. FORMERLY A LABORER,

Cross-examined, witness said he had been with the police force about 12 months, having joined at Wellington. He .had spent time in various parts of New Zealand. For four or five months prior to joining lie had been laboring at Waihiki Island, near Auckland, anil prior ,«j_ that was fanning at To Ayohn. .His parents resided there. His previous work had been in the electrical department of the Public Works at Hamilton. Mr. Burnard: He had approached Croon, but ho had not asked him to make a bet the first time. He had asked for the card, with the object of making a bet. You ingratiated yourself with him, with the object of making a bet?—Yes. Witness said that Croon had made no objection of giving him the cards, and mentioned that he, had seen witness about the town, and was satisfied with his “bona-fidcs, etc.” Mr. Burnard: Did you blush when lie told you that? (Laughter.) SHOWED A PROFIT.

Further cross-examined, witness said “it. was part, of his system to back winners where he could, like any sensible man.” He was as much surprised as anyone, he added, that ho had showed a profit. He had sought Croon, for “a bookmaker could not be expected to walk about town and find his clients.” Mr. Burnard: Well, be did not have to walk about after you? “FOUND DOUBLE CHARTS.*’

Senior-Sergeant Fitzpatrick stated that * h<* had arrested Croon on a warrant, and had searched him immediately. He had found double charts, day cards, and a betting register, entries, in which corresponded with the names of horses on the card. Croon made no reply when charged with the offences. Detective McLeod asked what witness know of accused, and the witness was stating that he knew accused as a bookmaker, when Mr. Bernard protested that this evidence could not be accepted. To say that Croon was a bookmaker was to charge him not only with the offence concerned in this action, but to charge him with other offences as well. A jury hearing had recently decided that Croon was not a bookmaker. Mr. Levvey took a note of the objection, and the witness stated that he had watched Croon, who was always to he seen on the streets, plying his calling. Mr. Burnard objected to this suggestion. “THE QUEEN BEE.’’ The witness further stated that on race davs tho alleway opening into a billiard saloon, where Croon stood, “resembled a beehive, with Croon as the queen-bee.” Constable Thompson said that, accused followed no legitimate occupation. Witness had watched accused carefully, on race days in particular, and had scon him approached bv men, who sometimes handed him what looked like money, fol lowing which lie made notes in a book, lie had also seen accused handing out cards to men. These activities suggested that accused was engaged in the calling of a bookmaker. Sergeant Dempsev and Constable Catehouse stated that they had watched the aceusnd carefully, and , laid seen the actions ori his part mentioned in Constable Thompson’s evidence. Mr. Burnard asked no questions of the witnesses..* Detective McLeod said that he had known Croon for 12 years, and could cor- , roborate the evidence of the previous witnesses. Cross-examined, the witness stated that 'Gladstone road was visited by a large number of people. Accused hud tho refutation of being a man not without menns. Other men who had retired might bo seen in the street frequently. There were no further finostions, and Detective McLeod closed M , <’ police earn with references (o autlio' ities. ACCUSED’S CASK. Mr. Burnard said that the first section of tho charges related to the street betting. He said the Magistrate must havo

been struck with the flimsiness of the evidence submitted by the police. It was necessary, lie said, that in cases of tins sort- the'evidence, should lack none of tho cogency of the evidenco upon which a conviction for a criminal offence could b« based. The polico case was based on the evidence of an accomplice, which must bo corroborated. Detective McLeod stated that that was not correct. Campin was instructed by his superior officer in the force, “EVIDENCE REQUIRED COBROBO RATION. Mr. Burnard said (fiat the evidence nevertheless required corroboration. He pointed out that the constable who gave evidence of the betting had practically admitted that he had been engaged on this sort of work in different places. Probably his reward depended upon the success lie obtained. There was no evidence beyond his definitely associating Croon with street betting. Other constables had observed Croon in certain actions, but the Court could not draw inferences from the evidence they had given. Any man \vns at perfect liberty to stand in 'Gladstone road and hand out documents. The police evidence lacked corroboration in any of its essential details. Counsel further stated that even if Constable Gampin’s evidence showed, giving it its full value, that there was a frequenting of the street for the purpose of betting, it was not conclusive proof of betting. He bad, lie said, got a card ono day, the next day he had made a bet, another day he had received tho returns on his bet. and on another occasion again he had initiated another series of bets. Did this show frequenting of the street? The statute aimed at preventing tho bookmaker from soliciting business from the public. In this case' the constable bad approached Croon, and in each case it hud been on his initiative that the sequence of stops were, taken. The evidence did not, prove that Croon’s business was localised in Gladstone road. Was it not as reasonable to suppose that accused had business premises elsewhere, but had been stopped casually by the constable. If a doctor were stopped in the street by a patient, could it bo said that, lie was carrying on his business in the street? Assuming that Croon was a bookmaker, the fact that Campin had made bets with him in the street did not establish Hie fact that he was in the street for the purpose of making bets, or that lie was frequenting Ihe street for betting purposes. His presence in the street had been taken casual advantage of by (lie constable, but that casual transaction, even if the constable’s evidence were correct, did not, prove, the police contention that Croon used (lie street, liabb t-ually for betting. Thercforo, lie confidently submitted that tho first series of charge's must fail. QUESTION OF PUBLICATION. On the question of publication of the cards. Mr. Burnard said that in regard to the day card, there could be no objection, as it was simply a reproduction of information published in the race*books. Tho double Charts were no ijoubt the subject of the prosecution, which was laid under sub-section 30 of the Act. Mr. Burnard observed that, to come within tho section the cards must have a notification on behalf of any club or institution, while it was also the case that the section was directed to the suppression of information as to betting “on any race,” which was singular, whereas doublei cards dealt with two races. There must be two races before any offence could bo contemplated and the section never contemplated that position. “ILLICIT PUBLICATION.” The Magistrate said that even from the simplest standpoint, they had to see the double chart as an illicit publica-j tion. Mr. Burnard’s contention was that the chart must have a name on before it could come with in the section. Mr. Burnard: The section aimed at stopping tha bookmaker from extending his business by advertisement, and onless the bookmaker’s name was on ,thc card., it could not be tho sort of document that the section aimed at stopping- y His Worship said that he could see the point raised. Mr. Burnard intimated that hei would be calling no evidence. After argument on certain points raised, His Worship said that the evi deace left ha doubt in "his mind that the accused had frequented the street for the purpose of betting. Tho constable had given his evidence clearly, and while uncorroborated was' not contradicted and His Worship was convinced that it was correct. Tho accused would bo convicted of all three charges of frequenting. On the point ntised hv Air. Burnard in respect to the publication of tho double cards, llis Worship said ho regarded it as substantial, and ono that might he referred higher for a ruling. Nevertheless, he held that the fact that accused had handed them out constituted publication, and ho would also convict accused on the chargo of publishing the double cards. Detective McLeod stated that this was Croon’s eighth appearance, but that his last, conviction was six years ago, when he was fined £IOO. Air. Burnard asked that the offences be treated as a single breach, and that the fact that for six years accused had had no conviction should be taken as having wiped the slate almost clean. His Worship said that tho cases could not be treated lightly. A great deal of the business that came before the Court was no doubt duo, lo the illicit operations of men of accused type. On the first street-betting charge Croon would be fined £IOO, and on each of the others £2O, On the charges of publishing double charts, Croon would also be fined £2O on each.