FOUND GUILTY OF BOOKMAKING

Southland Times, Issue 25512, 4 November 1944, Page 3

FOUND GUILTY OF BOOKMAKING

CROWN PROSECUTOR’S COMMENTS AT TRIAL

(P.A.) CHRISTCHURCH, Nov. 3. Arthur Leonard Albertson, aged 46, was tried in the Supreme Court on a charge of carrying on business as a bookmaker. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr A. T. Donnelly, said the police visited Albertson’s premises on Grand National Day. There were two telephones in

the office, because two phones were the insignia of any respectable bookmaker, just like a doctor and his car, a butcher and his apron or counsel and his wig and gown. Also in the office were a duplicator, a wireless set and an addressograph machine, which showed that Albertson had 570 clients in the Canterbury district. During the morning of the police visit, added Mr Donnelly, £595 had been taken. A ledger was found showing that between January and the end of July Albertson had paid out about £20,000 in bets. After quoting the low limits imposed by the Bookmakers’ Association, Mr

Donnelly went on to say that apart from these rules and limits bookmakers wanted still further protection by a rule unique in sporting organizations. In case a bookmaker was so nervous that by some act of God a punter might penetrate through the defences, bookmakers had another rule that “if any extraordinary occasion should arise, or in the case of a notorious or culpable fraud any of the above-mentioned rules may be suspended.” The bookmaker, said Mr Donnelly, was the sole judge of a “notorious or culpable fraud.” What justification there could be for these rules it would be difficult to suggest, but it might be suggested that they were necessary to protect bookmakers against the socalled “big punters,” who, by dint of extraordinary skill, were able to overcome the defences. ORDINARY CITIZEN’S VIEW Although most of them started off as big punters, they all finished up in the I same way—everyone knew what that was, said Mr Donnelly. The bookmakers knew it did not matter how they treated the punter. They would still get the business. Albertson’s records showed that he had about 600 postal clients, which showed that the ordinary citizen did not regard bookmakers as morally wrong. There was a lot to be said for that view, but Parliament had decided that bookmaking Was an anti-social or parasitic occupation and was illegal. Bookmaking was not carried on by benefactors or philanthropists, but .was an illegal business in which all the factors were against the customer. One could hardly feel, after looking at the rules and charts, that it was a business deserving of any sympathy or consideration. Mr H. F. O’Leary, K.C., of Wellington, who appeared for Albertson, said that Mr Donnelly had asserted that the case was as plain as the fact that the Trotting Cup would be run at Addington tomorrow, but, said Mr O’Leary, he thought it was as clear as what was going to win the race tomorrow. The important point was not whether a bookmaking business was being carried on, but was it being carried on by Albertson? He was not seen on the premises and had not been found there at the time of the police raid. Certain of his belongings had been found there, but that was not to be wondered at, as he ; had been in partnership at one time : with a man named Chisnall. A man ! named Munro had been found on the i premises, had been charged, pleaded I guilty and fined for carrying on busi- i ness as a bookmaker. j Mr O’Leary said it was open for the I jury to decide that Munro had been ! carrying on the business. It had been ; said that Chisnall was out of the busi- ’ ness, but might it not be the other : way round? The jury had to be satis- I fied that Albertson was actively con- • cerned in the business. Mr O’Leary urged the jury not to I shed too many tears over the poor . punters, as anyone who could bet with ; a bookmaker did so with his eyes open I and of his own free will. The Crown i case was lacking in proof of a vital j point, that it was Albertson who was conducting the business. JUDGE’S SUMMING UP In his summing up Mr Justice Northcroft urged the jury not to consider irrelevant matters. Whether the law j was wise or unwise in making book- I making unlawful was not a matter for ! the jury’s consideration. It was equally irrelevant to consider whether gambling was proper or improper. He felt it his duty, said his Honour, to say that the evidence of the Crown seemed to be overwhelming. That a bookmaker’s business was being conducted was unanswerable and no attempt had been made by the defence to answer it Indeed, it would be futile and an affront to the jury’s good sense to do so. “The complete absence of a defence suggests that it was an impertinence in presenting this case to a jury at all,” said his Honour. The jury retired at 12.30 p.m. and returned at 3 p.m. with a verdict of guilty, adding the following rider: — “That this jury considers that the present law regarding bookmakers should be amended.”