A BOOKIE FINED.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 39, 30 September 1911, Page 5

A BOOKIE FINED.

(Per Press Association 1 Ashburton, September 29. At the Magistrate’s Court to-day, before Mr V. G. Day,f S.M., Win. Whitta, bookmaker and 'land and estate agent, Christchurch, was charged on the information of the police .vith having committed a breach of .ho Gaming Act by loitering in a pubic place for the purpose of soliciting bets on the racecourse road opposite cho Ashburton racecourse, on September 1:1th and 15th. Whitta was represented by Mr J. A. Cassidy, and pleaded not guilty, j The' police led evidence to show that defendant loitered about the gates of the course on both days. Their witnesses said that they saw a stream , of people continually going to and from the gates, presumably for the purpose of speaking to defendant. Witnesses (who included Detective Osborne and Racecourse Detective Kraotzer) did cot actually, see what took place, as defendant invariably concealed his actions. Sergeant Fouhy deposed that '•o saw a man named Murray put his band in his pocket, take out something (presumably cash) and hand it to .defendant. -'>• Other witnesses told of similar snsoicious actions, and emphasised the act that defendant concealed Iris actions, which for the most part were «nost suspicious. Mr Cassidy submitted that there was no case to answer, and the prosecution must fail. The evidence adduced was suggestive only, and the prosecution desired his Worship to draw an inference. His client had come to Ashburton merely to watch the races. If the prosecution was upheld, it would mean that it would not be safe for a bookmaker,' should ho desire, to strictly comply with the provisions of the Act. The magistrate ruled.that there was i case to answer. / Whitta, who- was a- bookmaker, came to Ashburton, and it could only lie assumed that ho came expressly for the purpose of following his vocation. Several witnesses were called by the defence to prove that though Whitta was generally observed, there appeared to ho nothing suspicions about his actions.

From the witness-box. Whitta said that he visited Ashburton on September 14 and 15, as lie took a great interest in racing generally, and ho watched the races front the road. He could say positively that, ho never hooked a bet or accepted a chilling from anyone during the meeting. He contended it was outrageous to think that because a man had been a bookmaker ho could not speak to another person during the progress of a race mooting without contracting a betting transaction. If this was the law it would bo better to ostracise bookmakers to the North Pole, He knew that he was allowed on the racecourse. Ho was in Ashburton on business distinctly apart from racing. The magistrate said that ho would enter up a conviction against defendant for both days. For the first lay of the meeting Whitta would lie convicted and discharged, hut for the second day a fine of £59 and full costs (£3 19s 8d) would ho inflicted. The evidence of the prosecution certainly allowed of certain inference to ho taken, hut no satisfactory evidence had been given by defendant to show

why Whitta had visited Asldmrton. The fact that people wore repeatedly interviewed on the road, and then went hack to the course, allowed of only one inference, and that was that Whitta was loitering on the road for the purpose of soliciting hots. In reply to Mr Cassidy, his, Worship said he would fix security for an appeal at £lO 10s.