CHARGES AGAINST NOVAK

Taranaki Daily News, 9 March 1932, Page 8

CHARGES AGAINST NOVAK

FAILURE OF DEFENCE PLEA. PROSECUTION TO PROCEED. In the Eltham Police Court yesterday the magistrate, Mr. R. W. Tate, intimated that he could not accept the plea, of autrefois acquit in the charge against Antonio Novak of making totalisator odds bets. Novak’s counsel had contended that as Novak had been acquitted in the Supreme Court on the major charge of bookmaking he should necessarily be acquitted on the minor charges, which had resulted from the same circumstances. The magistrate referred to a previous case in which the judgment said: “The acquittal of the whole offence is pot an acquittal of every part of it. It is only an acquittal of the whole.” “Acquittal for bookmaking did not necessarily involve acquittal of the elements of which the bookmaking might consist — totalisator betting, betting on odds and double charts,” said the magistrate. “The fact that a person has offered to bet is evidence. That is less than the actual bet itself. An offer to bet is prima facie evidence of bookmaking. The bet itself, not offered but accepted, is evidence of what—betting or bookmaking I suggest not necessarily of bookmaking without other elements. The evidence in the Supreme Court comprised bets of 5s on Paratoo and 10s on Leisure, double charts, money passing, admission of a full book, in possession of a day card and notebook and 26 day cards and 11 double charts in the office. There was no evidence of an offer. Counsel suggested that the proof of three bets under Section 4 was the evidence of the bookmaking. Bookmaking is the whole, betting is a part. The acquittal in Salvi’s case is only of the whole. The accused is not put in peril for the same offence. The offences are not the same. The betting offence is a separate offence, and might be committed by a person who is not a bookmaker, though in the case, of a bookmaker the facts on the betting charge may be evidence or part of the evidence in proof of bookmaking. “The question is whether there is evidence against the present accused of totalisator betting or of betting only. I therefore find against your plea and on next court day I will take whatever you have to say in defence.”