WHEN MAGISTRATES DIFFER.

Observer, Volume XXVII, Issue 41, 29 June 1907, Page 2

WHEN MAGISTRATES DIFFER.

A Question of Obstruction

TH,E question whether an individual . who follows the calling of a bookmaker is entitled to the ordinary rights of a citizen ia the Use of the public thoroughfares has been twice before the local Police Court within the short space of one week. It is interesting to observe that on this particular point, and 1 on a remarkably similar set of circumstances, two Magistrates gave totally contradictory decisions. Mr Dyer, S. M , virtually held that the bookmaker, by reason of his occupation, has no rights. Mr Kettle, S.M., on the other hand, decided that he has. There was no evidence in either case that the defendant had been betting while standing in the street, but Mr Dyer was satisfied to believe that he had been, while Mr Kettle declined to believe without evidence. It goes without saying that the decision that will be endorsed by public opinion is that of Mr Kettle.

• «•• «. The first case waß the one before Mr i Dyer. The police charged William Ryan with wilfully obstructing Queenstreet, but the evidence of Constable Horan was that he was not obstructing passers-by, either wilfully or other- ' wise. The strongest testimony against '< him was that he was talking to a man and woman in the street and makin.' an entry in a book. Against this" there was the statement of Ryan ou oath that he was not snaking a bet He was writing on an envelope the address of the man to whom he was talking. Was this an offence? Was it a breach of the by-laws to talk to a man and a woman in the street without obstructing the passers by ? Any day, in Qaeen-street, polk-emen aud even magistrates may be >een talking to friends whom they meet casually. ■•■••••#. The decision of Mr Dyer was that Ryan had used the street for the pur- ' pose of bookinakin-g. There was no evidence whatever to support this' finding. One constable saw Ryan writing in a book, and Ryan says he was writing on an envelope, but beyond this act of writing there was nothing whatever, apart from the tact that Ryan is a bookmaker by occupation, to support the Magistrate's finding that he was betting in the street. It was surely an extraordinary decision, in the face of an utter absence of evidence, but it is one that will occasion no surprise. The people of Auckland are becoming accustomed to 'this sort of thing.

The other case, which was before Mr Kettle, was against Robert and James Blaikie. Sergeant McPhee said he saw about thirty men standing in Queen - street, and the defendants amongst them. They stood therefor five minutes. Witness saw one or two men tearing up pieces of paper that looked like race tickets. It wan not alleged that the defendants tore up any pieces of paper, or that it was an offence against the by laws to tear up pieces of paper, and it is significant that the pieces of paper were not pro duced in court to show whether or not they were race tickets.

It wasr on this preposterously inadequate evidence that Mr Kettle was asked to convict. Mr Dyer had already convicted on equally indirect testimony. But Mr Kettle, accepting the sworn statement of the two Blaikies that they were not betting, but waiting for a tram - car, dismissed the information. Indeed, it is difficult to see how he could have done otherwise. There is no law iik existence yet to penalize a bookmaker tor using a public thoroughfare in the same way as other citizens do. If he were using it for the purposes of betting, that would be a different matter,: but there ought to be direct evidence of betting before a conviction is recorded. What a Magistrate thinks or believes is not evidence, " but, unfortunately, it is soirietiraes regarded as sufficient to justify a conviction and sentence.