THE GAMING ACT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 114, 5 July 1911, Page 6

THE GAMING ACT.

ALLEGED BREACH. AN IMPORTANT CASE. The first case in this district under the new Gaming Aiy was heard in the Hawera Magistrate's C curt on Mcnffay, Mr Kenrick, -S.M , presuhhg Avheii Era hit Corrigan, ior viiom Mr Spence, of Stratford, appeared, was charged that he did frequent or loiter in a street, namely, between I! gw era: • and Normanby, and acljafunt to the Hawera Racecourse, for the purpose of belting. Defendant pleaded not guilty'. Detective-Sergeant Siddolls said the ease was one of extreme importance, both for the police and those who call themselves, or were called, bookmakers.- The information was laid under Section 2 of the Gaming Act, 1910. The prosecution assumed that defendant was a bookmaker. . On May 17 and 18 last, there was a race meeting at Hawera racecourse.;! Defendant, together with a number, of other bookmakers, were excluded from the course. There was a section in the Act which threw a certain amount of responsibility on racing clubs in preventing bookmaking from being carried out on racecourses. In compliance with that section of Act the Egraont Racing Club got all bookmakers off" the course, defendant, with others, being warned off. At Abe back-of the course,, and adjacent to? the saddling paddock, was the main road, the Nornianby-Hawera road. On?both days defendant and other bookmakers were standing about - on that load, and it would bo shown that,-ftorn thehroad no races could bo seen. If a man remained outside the course, and nothing further took place, then he would freely admit that no conviction could be obtained. In this ease something further did take place. Defendant, after being warned off the course, remained on the road, and it would be further shown that during the races people were cdmiiig from the racecourse and enclosures and going out to where the defendant and bookmakers stood. On one occasion defendant was sceh handing money to one of the persons coming out of the racecourse. The charge against the defendant was not for betting, but it was simply for frequenting a street for the purpose of betting. He submitted that frequenting a street for the purpose of betting had to be. decided by surrounding circumstances. Here they had a man outside oh the road, who Was known as a bookmaker,, and people coming to him from the course and going back to the course. And it was reasonable to assume that defendant was there for the purpose of following his occupation and keeping in touch with his customers. Mr

Spence would probably argue that the handing the money over was for the purpose of investment on the totalisator. 'Oat made no difference whatever, for the law provided that hotting on tjhe totalisator must be done at the totalisator. Any parson could not employ an agent. Unfortunately, the law was new, and there wore no Supreme Court cases to assit His Worship and the police in carrying out the law. James Walden, racecourse detective residing at Wellington, sfjid lie was employed on May 17th and ISth last for duty on the Egniont Ra-ing Club’s course. Witness had known defendant for a good many years, and witness had always known him as a bookmaker. Witness saw defendant oh the racecourse on both days. Defendant; was, on May 17th, in company with Stellin, another bookmaker. When witness came near them they ran, away on to. the Normanhy Iload v Witness also saw defendant ahd othors outside and near to the gate. They were about most of the day; moving on to the road and back to the racecourse. On the 18th witness saw defendant again on the rublie‘ road ; about ten yards from the entrance gate to the lawn. Two otber bookmakers'were with him. Defendant was about pretty well all day. _ From where defendant was standing ho conld not see the races, as there was a high iron fence blocking bis view., Witness s#w defendant talking with an elderly man, and later two or three others conversing with him as they passed by, and subsequently returning to the course. To Mr Spence; Had known defendant to be the owner of racehorses. When witness first saw defendant lie was near the straight and away from the crowd. They were trying to see -Slid ■s. 1 f ■ :

| the races, and at the same time keep out of witness’s way. When witness came he, with another, slipped on to the main road. Fi rm a hundred yards, from the gate defendant could see the races, ana these men were going up and clown. Witness gave instructions to the gatekeepers not to let people passing out to go near the bookmakers. To Detective-Sergeant Siddclls: It was possible for others to speak _ to defendant without witness seeing thorn. Mr Spence objected to this evidence as being an inference. Bis Worship said that anyone could speak to another on the public road without an inference being drawn. Constable Flanagan .stated he was on duty at Kawora racecourse on May 18th.' "Witness know defendant, who, prior to the Gaining Act, followed the occupation of a bookmaker. Since then 1m had not done anything. On the date in question before the third race, witness saw defer.dant on tae main road in company with one Arthur Bond, and Scott, a bookmaker. Witness saw defendant hand throe sovereigns to Bond, and witness spoke to defendant about it, who said, “That’s all right. Mick; its for the to to to put nn the horse Stevens.” Witness replied that it was no good. Subsequently defendant and Bond walked up the road, where they could view thA toil cl race. Bond later returned to the course. Witness again saw defendant on the road three times that'afternoon. . To Mr Spence: Witness said the race Stevens was running in was tue sixth race. Detective-Sergeant Siddclls, in evidence, said ho saw defendant “hanging about the roads.” Defendant was either near the outride lawn gate or the ether gate. On both clays a number of people wore leaving the course and returning to the lawn; ho could pot say whether they spoke to defendant, as'the bookmakers moved away. Egmont Club had a permit to use a totalisator on both clays. Defendant had been known to witness for some time as a bookmaker. This was the case for the prosecution. ■ Mr. Spence argued at some length that the prosecution had a weak case, and that on the evidence the Court could not convict. Counsel submitted that there was no suggestion that defendant was - on the street for the purpose of betting, or that be had had a bet. and considered that the matter of the agency mentioned by the Detec-tive-Sergeant was not covered by Seclion 2 of the Act. Mr. Spence thought there was a much stronger case against an ex-bookmaker beard at Now Plymouth Supreme Court, but it was thrown out.

The defendant, giving evidence on his own behalf, said ho was a bookmaker until the passing of the Act, and was at the time of 'the races and now an owner of racehorses. On the day he was on the racecourse ho was there to witness the race. When ho saw Detective Walden he left because ho did not wish to be warned off the course, as ho had never been warned off a course in his life. He did not go on the course on the second day, but remained outside. There 'were a number of people about. He went past the iron fence, saw the races, and came back to the fence for shelter. He was not there for the purpose of betting; he did not invito anyone to bet with him, nor did anyone invite him to do so. He admitted having invested money on tiro totalisator, through the agency of others. To Detective-Sergeant Siddolls witness said that since the coming into operation of the Gaming Act bo had looked after his horses, . and had enough means to live on for a long time to come. The Magistrate said lie would reserve his decision.—Hawera “Star.”