BOOKMAKER CONVICTED

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16347, 23 May 1927, Page 7

BOOKMAKER CONVICTED

MAXIMUM PENALTY IM-, POSED CHARLES CROON FINED £l2O Fifteen charges of frequenting the street for the purpose of betting were to have been preferred against Charles Croon in the Police Court this morning, before Mr. E. C. Lewev, S.M. Mr. J. S. Wauchop, for the defendant, pleaded guilty to two of the charges, the dates of which were April 18 and 23, however, and the remaining charges were not read in court, the inspector of police/asking that they should he withdrawn. Inspector Eeeles said that in till there were 15 charges, hut as the defendant had pleaded guilty to two charges he would ask to withdraw the others. ,'Tlie modus operandi was somewhat different from that, of Arthur Owen. Croon paraded the street in Gladstone road, and had been under observation by the police for the last three months, during which he had operated as a bookmaker, principally between the Masonic hotel and Rossbothain’s shop. It may be asked why Croon was brought up on summons and was not arrested. He could tell Mr. Croon that he was a very lucky man thgt; he had been, ill on the day,that Owen was arrested. In respect of the charge on April 18 there were numerous meetings in various parts of New Zealand. In the morning a wpman came up to him outside the Herald office and handed liim a £1 note; again in the morning a man did likewise, and Croon handed him a day card. On April 23 Croon was talking to two men. Croon, by the way, either stood by a telegraph pole, or hopped off the street into an alley way. One man handed him a £1 note on this day, and Croon gave him a day card. With regard to the other charges, these had been laid to show the system.

As far as the man himself was concerned, he. was a very decent man, and had done many great acts of charity, added the inspector. Mr. Wauchop mentioned the facts that were in favor of the defendant. ..He appreciated, what the police had ;“done in withdrawing the other charges. . A large set of charges had been laid to c-atch the defendant on one or the. other. A pleasing feature of the case was that the police had made no use of spies. Was it to be wondered that, when the Government permitted so many meetings on the One day that the people wanted to bet? The Government was really responsible for the creation of the bookmaker, although it was Supposed to suppress him. The magistrate would see that the amounts of the bets were very small. As far as the defendant hiinself was concerned he was one of Gisborne’s most respectable citizens. As the country was badly in need of . "fends, he would suggest that a fine ; ivould meet the case. The magistrate fined the defendant fttlOO on, the first charge and £2O on ' * the second, with costs. PUNTERS ALSO FINED Godfrey Wagner was charged with hotting with a bookmaker, and Mr. N. H. Bull pleaded guilty on his behalf. Inspector Eccles said that Wagner was a first offender, and the case was -the first oF-this nature'brought in"Gis- ' boriie. He-had been ill for some time, and had not been earning much as regards Wages. “But he found the money to bet,” remarked the Magistrate dryly. Mr. Bull said the circumstances were somewhat interesting. The defendant had been employed on a station, but met with an accident, and had to come to town. Had it hot been for that accident he would not have been in town, and would not jjtave had the bet. A friend asked him to put- some money on two horses, and the defendant put £1 on too. He did iidt make a practice of betting. Under the circumstances he would ask. for the suppression of the name. “People.who are anxious to make quick money by betting should remember that under the Act they are liable to "a penalty of £IOO nr six months’ imprisonment,” said the Magistrate. “The defendant will be fined £2 and costs 10s, but I certainly will not suppress the name.” Tor a similar offence Geo Yee, a Chinese, was fined £2 and costs 10s. “But I haven’t collected yet!” remarked the defendant, amidst laugh,ter, in which the Magistrate joined. ■ Mrs. Margaret Hume Chancellor, a widow, who, according to the inspector, had been out of work for some time, was ordered to pay costs, ]os. The inspector remarked that her 1-e.t was only for 5s and he asked for leniency under the circumstances.