LOVELL JURY DISAGREES

Taranaki Daily News, 26 May 1933, Page 5

LOVELL JURY DISAGREES

CHARGES OF BOOKMAKING CROWN MOVES FOR A NEW TRIAL SEQUEL TO MARCH POLICE RAID. A disagreement was reported by the jury last night after having considered for four hours the evidence against Sidney Roy. Lovell, hairdresser, who was alleged to have carried on the business of bookmaking at New Plymouth on February 25 and 27 and March 18 and during the periods between those dates. The jury, which retired at 3.39 p.m., was discharged at 8.20, after the foreman had told Mr. Justice Reed that there was no chance of reaching a conclusion. Mr. R. H. Quilliam (Crown Prosecutor) moved for a new trial and suggested it might’ be fixed for next week, but his Honour, in granting the application, said he did not think there would be time as there was a good deal of work to do before the session concluded. At Mr. Quilliam’s request the question of fixing a time was reserved in the meantime. On the application of Mr. A. A. Bennett, Lovell was re-admitted to bail in a personal surety of £lOO and one other ,of £lOO. Shortly before the dinner adjournment the jurymen had returned to the Court to ask for a definition of a bookmaker, with particular reference to the point Whether a man could be said to be carrying on the business of bookmaking at the same time that he was conducting another business. OUTLINE OF POLICE EVIDENCE. The jury comprised Messrs. John Anderson (foreman), Thomas Portway, A. R. Mitchell, A. C. Garner, F. P. Blackwood,. J. P. Deegan, Richard Briggs, William James, R. A. Cocker, W. E. Keating, J. P. Miller and Albert Beresford. Seven of those whose names were called were stood by by the Crown. The defence only twice exercised its right to challenge. While doing plain-clothes duty at New Plymouth Constable Groombridge visited Lovell’s hair-dressing saloon in Devon Street for hair-cuts and shaves or cigarettes, the first time on February 6, said Mr. Quilliam. On these occasions he heard bets being made. On February 25 Gropmbridge again went to the shop for a shave. He made a 10s bet with Lovell on Thespis, a horse running that day at Te Aroha. The constable gave the name of “Shave,” and this and other details of the bet were entered by Lovell in a small notebook. Two days later, on the second day of the Te Aroha races, Constable Groombridge, as he entered the shop, handed Lovell a £1 note and asked for 10s on Exaggeration. Then he went into the saloon, where while he was being shaved Lovell brought him the change and made •n entry in the notebook. On March 18 the police carried out raids throughout Taranaki, directed against -bookmakers. Detective Meiklejohn and Constable Stanton arrived at Lovell’s shop with a search warrant just before 3.30 p.m. This was Saturday, a day on which race meetings were being held in various parts of the Dominion. The police found on the premises Lovell, three assistants and Hawke and Johnson. Over a radio set racing results were being broadcast at intervals. RACE CARDS ON FLOOR. Upon the detective explaining the object of the visit Lovell said: “You’ll find nothing here. I have given up the game this two weeks. I’ve not done anything since that man of yours was here.” That, suggested counsel, was the strongest corroboration of the bets made by Groom-t bridge. No betting material was found in Lovell’s possession, and Detective Meiklejohn was positive that there was none on the floor when he arrived. It was curious, however, that some time later race cards were found on the floor; this suggested someone had decided to be discreet and so got rid of the cards. The telephone was used frequently while the police officers were present. A woman rang to say that she had backed Cricket Bat with Lovell for 10s and to ask for 10s on Martian Chief as well. A man’s voice asked for “Sid” before becoming suspicious of the voice replying to him. Then he asked if the message about the washing had been received. “Yes,” said the detective at the other end. The. woman who had rung previously telephoned again to ask for 10s on Martian Chief. Later a man named “Ben” asked for 10s on Lordly Knight, and the woman again telephoned for 10s each on Hunt the Slipper and Pomp in the. Suburban Handicap at Wellington. Later she rang to say that Hunt the Slipper was scratched. She requested the transference of the bet to Lordly Knight Other messages indicative of bookmaking were received. Detective Meiklejohn found envelopes with what were alleged to be records of bets. Constable Hodge would recall that in October, 1931, while in a billiard saloon at New Plymouth he was handed a double chart by Lovell. Word went round that he was a policeman, however, and the chart was rescued. Evidence was given by Constable Groombridge and he was cross-exam-ined, and by Detective Meiklejohn, who described his visit to the shop.on March 18 and produced betting material found. Detective Meiklejohn proceeded to give evidence of having warned Lovell against bookmaking. He recalled suspicious occurrences over a period, including the fact that an unusual number of men frequented the saloon. QUESTION OF ADMISSIBILITY. His Honour agreed to Mr. Bennett’s requet-t that the admissability of this evidence of antecedents should be reserved for the Court of Appeal if necessary. To Mr. Bennett: Generally speaking he would be surprised to find a day card, marked to show placed horses and dividends, in the possession of a man not suspected of being a bookmaker. If a man did have such a card he would probably be a punter to whom the card had been given by a bookmaker. He did not suggest there was anything sinister about a marked newspaper. A man could sit in Lovell’s shop or anywhere else where there was a radio set and mark the results on the paper. To his knowledge it was not the , practice of bookmakers at New Plymouth to give betting slips to customers. He knew that betting slips had been issued by bookmakers at Hawera. At no time from the time of his arrival at the shop had he given Lovell any warning. Lovell made some admissions, but no written statements were asked for. Detective Kearney and Constable Hodge, Morrinsville, also gave evidence. Mr. Bennett made formal objection to the whole of Constable Hodge’s evidence (which concerned his dealings with Lovell while on plain clothes duty in October, 1931). The evidence was taken, the point raised • by counsel being reserved. The constable said he had heard a man tell Lovell he would take a double on Royal Game and another horse. The man had a printed double chart. Later he saw Lovell in a billiard room at 3 p.m. In the evening at 7 o’clock he again saw Lovell in the saloon. Witness asked him to play a game of billiards. Lovell asked the manager, Don King, if

witness could play. Afterwards Lovell gave witness a double chart on the Marton meeting the following day (October 21). When about to take his shot witness handed the chart back, and Lovell handed it to Mick Russell, sitting on a form. Another man walked into the room and told Russell that witness was a policeman at Napier; witness had been pi-eviously stationed at Napier for seven years. After the game witness invited Lovell downstairs. There he told Lovell that he had overheard the man’s remark. Lovell said he had been tipped off as a Napier policeman. Witness said he had been a policeman, but was not one now and that had he been one he could have taken bets with Lovell in the saloon in the morning or in the billiard saloon in the afternoon. Lovell admitted this and they parted. His statement that he was not a policeman was untrue and was made to lull Lovell’s suspicion. In the room, on his identity being disclosed, the double chart was hurriedly put away. To Mr. Bennett: As far as he knew no action was taken against Lovell as a result of witness’ visit to New Plymouth. Witness had no corroboration of his evidence!. This completed the case for the Crown. Mr. Quilliam intimated he would not address the jury. Mr. Bennett said he would not call Evidence, and he proceeded with an address to the jury on the lines of that he made on a similar charge the previous day. He commented on. the fact that no betting material was found in the possession of Lovell and that very little racing material of any sort was found on the premises. He suggested that the jury should give a very z careful scrutiny before accepting the evidence of Constable Groombridge, a young probationer constable in the force 16 months, who knew that his duties were costing his department money and who had before him the chance of promotion. .After emphasising the responsibility of the jury to consider the evidence impartially and in accordance with their oaths his Honour (while not making any suggestions regarding the present jury) recalled that there had been cases in New Zealand in which juries had found an acquittal on evidence which, if they had been faithful to their oaths, must have led them to convict the accused person. Dealing with the consequences of any laxity in the administration of the law he used the example of America, where chaos had resulted in the administration of the liquor laws. He did not suggest there was graft in New Zealand like that. in America, but he used the illustration to show that it behoved the jurors to come to their conclusion influenced only by the evidence before them and entirely uninfluenced by their sympathies either for or against the particular law. EVIDENCE HARD TO SECURE. It was impossible to secure evidence of bets apart from that of policemen, because every person who bet with a bookmaker was liable to a fine of £lOO, said his Honour in discussing the ethics of plain-clothes men approaching bookmakers for bets. A private person, under the circumstances, was unlikely to volunteer evidence, but if he were placed in the box he could claim the privilege of refusing to answer the questions on the ground that they might incriminate him. Thus the police authorities had decided it was necessary, in order to administer the gaming law, to send out plain-clothes constables to make bets without disclosing their identity. Under Sufli circumstances the last thing the department would want was false evidence. Groombridge had impressed his Honour as a man above average intelligence, and it did not appear that his evidence was of the kind that might be untrue.

Corroboration was not required by law, but if it were necessary there was coiroboration of Groombridge’s bet in the statement of Lovell to Detective Meiklejohn that he had not done any betting since “that man of yours was here.” His Honour pointed out that it was not illegal to make a bet between two persons, unless one of them was a bookmaker. Consequently if the jury were satisfied that this was an isolated bet and not a bet received in the course of the cairrying on of a bookmaking business it could acquit Lovell.