NOT GUILTY

Southland Times, Issue 22010, 9 May 1933, Page 8

NOT GUILTY

BOOKMAKING CHARGE CROWN’S ALLEGATIONS FAIL ACQUITTAL BY JURY A plea of not guilty to a charge that on February 8 last at Tokanui he carried on the business or occupation of a bookmaker was entered by Frederick Joseph Bogue, of Wyndham, when he was indicted before his Honour Air Justice Kennedy and a common jury in the Supreme Court yesterday. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr H. J. Macs lifter) conducted the case for the Crown, while Mr Gordon J. Reed represented the accused. The following jury was empanelledJohn Bateman (foreman), Francis Brown, Victor Henry Paterson, Alfred Henry Gibbs, Stanley Richard Lowden. William Anderson, Charles Murray. George Stewart, Edward George Munnings, James Barnett, Duff McGillivray John Cunningham and Robert Holmes. The Crown stood aside 12 jurors, while the accused exercised his right of challenge on two occasions Case For Prosecution In outlining the facts upon which the Crown relied, Mr Macalister said that to constitute the legal offence it was not necessary that the accused per - son should be wholly occupied as a bookmaker; it was sufficient if he made two or three bets in the one day The evidence was that the accused, who was Town Clerk at Wyndham, at the Tokanui Hack Racing meeting last Feb • ruary, was observed by a detective officer going about talking to groups of men in motor’ cars and making notes There was nothing very much in that, but when the detective, who had had suspicions, accused Bogue of bookmaking, he admitted that that was so, but promised to cease his activities. Such evidence, which would be corroborated by another officer present at the time, was sufficient, stressed the Crown Prosecutor, to bring the accused within the provisions of the law making bookmaking a criminal offence. It was not for the jury to determine the morality of the offence—the jury had to determine only whether the accused had offended against the law Evidence by Detectives. Detective Robert Lean, stationed at Invercargill, the first witness, said that on February 8 last he attended the Tokanui meeting at the Tokanui racecourse. The meeting was not a totalisator one. The first race started at about 1 p.m. Between that hour and 2.30 p.m. witness saw the accused going about talking to groups of men making his way to motor cars. He appeared to be taking notes. At 2.30 p.m. witness got in touch with Detective-Sergeant Hewitt. Bogue was accused of carrying on the business of a bookmaker. He then admitted that he had been doing it in a small way, but if no more was said about it he would discontinue. Witness asked Bogue for his book and the accused handed over his racebook (produced) which showed five small bets on the third event. Witness told the accused he would have to go off the course and Bogue left immediately. Two years previously, when witness had attended the same meeting, the accused was going about in the same suspicious manner. Witness told Bogue on that occasion that he suspected him of bookmaking and warned him to stop. His actions on that occasion were exactly the same as they were last February.

To Mr Reed: The meeting was really a picnic fixture. Bogue had been known to witness for two years. Though people were certainly .moving about at the meeting they did_ not arouse suspicion as did Bogue. Witness opened the conversation by saying: “You’re betting.” They were speaking together for about two minutes. After Bogue handed over the race book, witness asked the accused if he had another book and Bogue said he had not. Witness did not see another book and hand it back to the accused. When Bogue was leaving the course, he asked witness what he was going to do about it and witness said he .(Bogue) would know later. Bogue admitted that he had been bookmaking in a small way. Corroborative evidence was given by Detective-Sergeant D. J. Hewitt. Under cross-examination by Mr Reed, witness said he saw a small black book in addition to the racebook. Bogue handed witness the two books. Detective Lean was standing alongside at the time. Witness glanced through the black book and then returned it. Witness was aware that Bogue was engaged in a legitimate occupation at the Wyndham race meetings. There were between two and three hundred patrons at the Tokanui meeting. Pica for Accused. This evidence having concluded the case for the Crown, Mr Reed said he did not intend calling evidence and, upon Mr Macalister waiving his right to address the jury, counsel commenced his plea on behalf of Bogue. Mr Reed, at the outset, said that the onus rested on the Crown of proving that Bogue had carried on the business or occupation of a bookmaker. What did carrying on the business or occupation of a bookmaker mean? The prosecution absurdly suggested that what. Bogue had done at the meeting last February constituted a breach of the law. What was the suspicious manner? What was Bogue doing? He was going between motor cars; he was making notes. They got his racebook, but what did they find? The jury would see for themselves when they were handed the racebook. It was never the intention of legislation to drag in every person who happened to make a bet with another persc?i; in fact the legislation expressly provided that no person should be guilty of bookmaking by the mere reason of making bets. He had to be carrying on the business of a bookmaker, stressed counsel, who read authoritative judicial decisions on what was actually meant by “carrying on business.” One judge had laid it down that the words imparted a series, or repetition, of acts. There must be some sort of continuity of acts before Bogue could be held to be a bookmaker. Again, his- Honour Mr Justice Herdman in a Court of Appeal case some time ago had said that isolated acts did not make a man a bookmaker. “The Crown said in opening that this case was not a serious or a hanging one,” continued counsel, “Let me emphasize that it is a serious matter for the accused, who is liable to imprisonment.” Mr Reed said that the jury had to not duly to hold that the marks in the racebook were bets, hut, further, even if they were bets, that then Bogue was a bookmaker. The Crown case rested on flimsy evidence indeed. It was a pity, too, for the prosecution that the evidence of Detective Lean and Detective-Sergeant Hewitt did not coincide on the alleged admissions made by Bogue. Detective Lean said he accused Bogue of betting—not of carrying on the business of a bookmaker. Again the detective stated he had not seen the other black, book, yet his companion declared he should have seen it. The only evidence against the accused was that of two detectives, one of whom said one thing and the other another. It would be distinctly unfair to the accused to convict him on such testimony. It seemed strange, too, if the detectives had their suspicions about Bogue two years ago, that they.

had never apprehended him since then. It was absurd in the extreme to suggest on the evidence that Pogue was a bookmaker. “I am not asking you to acquit the accused out of sympathy for bookmakers, but simply because the Crown’s case is so lamentably weak,” concluded counsel. Judge’s Summing Up. In the course rf his summing-up, his Honour, after explaining the law in issue, said an isolated bet that might be made on particular occasion did not make one a bookmaker. The business of a bookmaker could be carried on either on a large or small scale and the person concerned could be in other employment. The fact that a man had another occupation which he in general followed was by no means conclusive of the matter. The law laid it down that the fact that a person, directly or indirectly offered to make a bet should be sufficient evidence, until the contrary was proved, that such person was a bookmaker. If the jury thought there was that sufficient evidence in the present case, it was for the defence to rebut that evidence. His Honour concluded by briefly reviewing the evidence led by the prosecution. The jury retired at 12.35 p.m. and returned at 1 p.m. with a verdict of not guilty, the accused being discharged from custody*