BOOKMAKING CHARGES.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18351, 23 August 1929, Page 7

BOOKMAKING CHARGES.

‘‘DOUBLES AND SHANDIES.” CASES AT TIMARU COURT. “lii coming to a decision as to the penalty to be imposed, I am faced with the position, however unpleas ant, of stating that the defendant has committed perjury, and further, that he has set himself out to make the Court believe that the constable’ also has committed perjury. We realise there is a good deal of perjury committed in the courts all over New Zealand. In fixing .a penalty in this case I will have to take into consideration the fact that perjury has been committeed. But for this fact the penalty would have been less.” With these words, the Magistrate, Mr C. R. Orr-Walker. at the Timaru Magistrate’s Court yesterday, imposed a fine of £2O, on each charge, on John Percival Munro, on charges that, “on July 31 at Timaru, he did publicly exhibit a double chart on certain races—the Grand National Hurdles, and the Winter Cup,” and that “on August 31. at Timaru he did further exhibit a double chart on the same races.” Munro, who was represented by Mr W. H. Walton, and who had been remanded from the previous Saturday, pleaded not guilty. Inspector A. S. Bird, with the Magistrate’s consent, withdrew a third charge, that of, “at Timaru, on 31, Munro did carry on the business of a bookmaker.”

The first charge was heard first. Outlining the case, Inspector Bird stated that Constable F. C. Lockie, of Wellington, had been detailed to Timaru, in plain clothes, on special duty, during National week, with headquarters at the Crown Hotel. The constable had met defendant in the bar. Defendant had a double card, and the gonstable approached him, with a view to taking a double. When the defendant went away, the constable inquired who he (defendant) was. The barman-porter told him the defendant’s name was “Paddy” Munro. Giving evidence, Constable Lockie stated that, from July 27 to August 12. he had been doing plain clothes duty in Timaru. On July 31, in the public bar of the Crown Hotel, at about 4.30, he saw the defendant displaying a double card. Witness asked him for a look at the card, and after a perusal, took Red Fuchsia in the Grand National Hurdles and Royal Saxon in the Winter Cup. The card was a home-made one, and the price of the double was £l2 10s to 2s 6o* Several others in the bar took doubles from defendant. Witness paid, defendant 2s 6d, and told him to put it down to “Darkie.” Defendant made an entry in a small black book. To Inspector Bird, witness said he was positive defendant Munro was the man. To Mr Walton witness said he had been round all the hotels in Timaru that day. and had had about five small drinks, perhaps one or two more. He had two with Munro, and was drinking “pony shandies” and “squash shandies.” Witness had never seen Munro before. The price given was £l2 10s to 2s 6d. Mr Walton: “That’s 100 to 1, is it not." Witness: “Yes.” The Magistrate: “Lightning calculation.” To Mr Walton, witness said the price was not given on the card, only the horses and weights. About one quarter of the doubles had been taken He had not been introduced to Munro, but had arranged a further meeting, “to collect,” if the horses won. Mr Walton. “The man’s name is not ‘Paddy’ Munro.” Witness: “That's what the bar-porter told me.” The Magistrate: “He was arrested under the name of ‘Paddy’ Munro. Apparently ‘Paddy’ is a nickname.” Mr Walton (to witness): “Are you calling the porter?” Witness: “No.” To a further question: “Yes, I was quite sober.” Mr Walton: “Although you had those drinks —and you don't know how many more.” Inspector Bird: “That’s not correct. Witness did not say that. The constable took particular stock of Munro. and gave us an accurate description.” Mr Walton (to witness): “If defendant says he was not in Timaru prior to that date, what would you say?” Witness: “I would say he was there on the date I said. Previous to that I don’t know where he was.” This concluded Constable Lockie’s evidence. Mr Walton stated that the defence was a denial that defendant ever took a bet, with the constable, or any one else. Defendant was a woolciasser. who had come to Timaru to visit his parents. On July 31, defendant was in the Crown Hotel. Defendant would not deny this, but would dpny having taken bets. Defendant had been greatly surprised at being arrested. No evidence of double cards was found on defendant, who had only 13s 8d in his pockets. '“lf he had been taking doubles,” said Mr Walton, “it would be reasonable to suppose he would have had more cash in his possession. In evidence, Munro said he came to Timaru on July 31, going straight home, to Waimataitai, but later, about 4.30, coming back into town. He had a few drinks with friends at the Crown Hotel. He had never seen the constable until he saw him in Court. “I was with my own friends,” he added. There were several “Munros” in town that day, witness continued, but not with him. He had several cousins of that name, who usually came to Timaru on Friday. Witness caught tin. six o’clock bus and went home to tea. “I never took a wager in my life,” he added. Inspector Bird - “You had a bandage on your left hand?” Witness: “Yes.” Inspector Bird: “You were in the bar when the constable was?” Witness: “I was with my friends.” Inspector Bird: “You’ll admit—.” Witness: “I’ll admit nothing.” Inspector Bird: “You won’t contradict it. How do you account for Constable Lockie’s accurate description of you?” Witness: “He gave evidence to say the hotel porter told him my name.” Inspector Bird: “Then what the constable has said is all lies?” Witness: “Yes.” Inspector Bird: “And what you’re saying is the truth?” Witness: “Yes.” Inspector Bird: “Did you know that two bookmakers had been arrested?” Witness: “No.’ ’ Inspector Bird: “Do you mean—.” Witness: “I had heard something about it.” Inspector Bird: “Which gave you the opportunity of getting rid of any you may have had.” Witness: “If I had had it.” This conclude i the evidence. The Magistrate said he was given the question of whether the defendant or the constable was telling the truth. The constable the Magistrate said, hac‘. been in the hotel for a specific purnose, and had to be careful. There was ever} reason why he (the constable) should exercise all care as to identity. Defendant had admitted he was in the bar at the same time as Constable Lockie. Then there was the bandaged hand. All these elements pointed co the constable being correct in his statement. As against the constable’) statement that he wag in the bar. defendant stated he was not. But defendant had not chosen to bring evidence in support of his statement, it wa; peculiar that a man who had lived in Timaru a good deal, had not called evidence in support of his statement “I have come to the conclusion that defendant is not telling the truth. The

constable’s evidence impressed me 1 most. Defendant will therefore be convicted on the charge, but I will witholu the penalty in the meantime.” When the second charge had been read, Mr Walton asked for an adjournment until after lunch, as defendant wished to call evidence. The Magistrate: “Why didn t he have them here?” Inspector Bird: T object to an adjournment. Constable Lockie has ,o get back to Wellington to-night, and there is a danger of manufacturing during the adjournment.” The Magistrate agreed to an adjournment until after the luncheon interval. ... , , After the luncheon adjournment, at 2.15, the second charge was gone ori The only witness, Harry Smith, barman at the Crown Hotel, was asked i-o leave tbe Court while other evidence was being heard. . Constable Lockie stated that in this case, he was in the public bar at the Crown Hotel at about 4.30. Witness saw defendant there again, and asked for another look at the card, after which he too«c another double. This time the price was £4 10s to 2s 6d. Only the horses and weights appeared on the c~rd. . To Inspector Bird, witness said there was no one else with defendant while he (witness) was speaking to him. "We both ‘shouted,’ and I had •ponv’ shandies.” . Inspector Bird: ‘.‘You’re not a drinking man?” Witness: “I drink only when my work obliges me to.” He was absolutely positive defendant was the man. The barman served drinks and went away, and would be about six yards away when the bet was taken. “I told him to put it down to ‘Darkie,’ and that I was staying at the hotel. I was alone, with defendant, for about ten minutes.” To Mr Walton witness said he looked at the card for several minutes. Not much was said. Mi Walton: “The silence was broken only by defendant and yourself invit ing each other to drink?” Witness: “Yes.” Mr Walton: “It must have been a rather gloomy party.” In further reply to Mr Walton witness said he had had a squash shandv in the Empire Hotel, at about 12.30. Mr Walton: “Squash shandy seems to be your long suit.” The Magistrate: “Beer and lemonade isn’t it?” . Mr Walton: “I don’t know, your Worshio. I’m not familiar.” To witness: “Ever drink spirits?” Witness: “No.’ Mr Walton: Then you ought to. It would do you good.” Inspector Bird: “He’d be seeing trebles then, not doubles.” Mr Walton < to witness): “If evidence was called to say you had ten squash shandies, what w’ould you say?” Witness: “It would be incorrect.” After a short discussion oil the ingredients of squash shandies and other drinks, witness said the bar was almost square, and the barman could easily have missed a double being taken. * Mr Walton (to witness): “You have been on this work for some time, haven’t you? I understand you were at New Plymouth recently.” Witness: “Yes.” Mr Walton: “In the same quiet way as in Timaru?" Witness: “Yes. perhaps quieter.” Mr Walton: “You didn’t ask defendant his name? ’ Witness: “No, he may have got suspicious.” To Inspector Bird, witness said he had had considerable experience in such work. He fully realised his duties at the hotel, and had made notes. Mr Walton said the defence was similar to that of the previous case. Defendant had not, at any stage of his career, taken up bookmakir.g or using double cards. Mr Walton submitted that Constable Lockie might have made a mistake in identity. The constable did not ask defendant’s name, but had relied on the porter. At this stage the Magistrate asked Constable Lockie if the man had had his hand bandaged, and a reply in the affirmative was given. Defendant Munro, in evidence, said he remembered the day, and having gone to the Crown to have a drink. He had drinks with his friends, but had not seen the constable, and had not seen any double cards. In replv to Mr Walton, defendant said he “knew nothing about anybody taking doubles in the bar.” He had two drinks. Inspector Bird: “Let’s have a look at that hand of yours.” Defendant showed his hand as requested, and the Inspector remarked that it bore evidence of having been bandaged. The Magistrate also, studied the hand. Inspector Bird (to defendant): “You have heard what the constable said about the drinks, and the black book? • Witness: “It is incorrect.” Inspector Bird: “Then he is wilfully lying?” Witness: “Yes.” Inspector Bird; “Can you give any reason why the constable, a man unknown to you, should go into the witness box and wilfully perjure himself.” Witness: “No.” Inspector Bird: “You admit you were in the bar about 4.30?” Witness :“Yes, but the rest is all lies.” Inspector Bird: “And you are telling the truth?” Witness: “Yes.” Inspector Bird: “Then one of you is a liar.” Witness: “Im not telling lies.” Inspector Bird: “Then the constable is?" Witness: “Yes.” Inspector Bird: “That’s all the evidence I reouire from you." To the Magistrate, witness said he had known the barman for some years. Witness had had a long beer. The barman. Smith, was then called. To Mr Walton, Smith said he had known Munro for five years. Mr Walton: “Do you know Constable Lockie?” Witness: “No.” Mr Walton: “Then I will introduce you to the gentleman.” (Pointing.) “This is him here.” In reply to Mr Walton, witness said the man now known to him as Constable Lockie had always asked for a long squash shandy. He paid about five visits to the bar daily. Inspector Bird (to witness): “How long have you known defendant?” Witness: “About five years.” Inspector Bird: “I see, an old friend came in to see you.” When did - you find out you were wanted as a witness?” Witness: “After lunch. I saw Mr Walton and the defendant.” Inspector Bird: “What did you speak to the defendant about.” Witness: “As to whether he drank with the constable or not.” Inspector Bird: “Are you prepared to swear whether Constable Lockie j took a bet or not?” Witness: “It’s quite possible.” Inspector Bird: “Say yes or no.” Witness: ‘.‘Well. I’ll say no.” Inspector TU-d- »» ou ever kept double card yourself?” Witness: "No. Inspector Bird: “Are you sure of that?” Witness: “Yes.” Inspector Bird: “Do you know a man named Henderson? Does he visit the Hotel?” Witness: “Yes.” Inspector Bird: “Do you know what he is?” Witness: “He’s got a barber's shop.” In further reply to the Inspector, witness said he was not sure whether Constable Lockie was in the bar or not. Witness could not swear as to whether he had served the constable with drink, or not. Summing up, the Magistrate said it was clear that witness Smith and the defendant were friends. He would accept the evidence of the prosecution, as in the previous case. "The evidence of defendant and witness Smith, to

say he least, is negative at the best. I can see no reason why Constable Lockie should commit a deliberate perjury. Defendant was in the bar and he was the man. The bandaged hand was a proof, and there is no question of mistaken identity,” said the Magistrate. The constable s evidence was straight-forward. Defendant had good reason to tell a false story, and his friend had good reason for backing him up. He would be convicted. Mr Walton asked that the penalty be as light as possible. At present defendant was out of work, with no promise of employment in sight. To the Magistrate, Inspector Bird stated that nothing further was known against defendant. The Magistrate imposed a penalty of £2O on each charge, defendant being given two weeks in which to pay.