ALLEGED TOTALISATOR BETTING.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7424, 10 June 1902, Page 3

ALLEGED TOTALISATOR BETTING.

» CHARGE AGAINST MATTHEW BARNETT. A CONVICTION. Matthew Barnett was charged' before Mr R. Beetham, 8.M., at/ the Magistrate's Court to-day with having, on /Jan. 28 i made bets at totalisator odds' with one WilJ liam Wales. Mr Stringer appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Harper (with 'him Mr Cassidy) for the defendant. Mr Stringer, in- opening the case, said that it was plain from documents found in Barnett's possession that -he had made bets with, a man named Wales on> conditions which dependied 1 ,on the working of the .totalisator. ' It was reasonable to infer from the defendant's books tliat ho was carrying out a' regular system of totalizator vbejttirig.j Mr 1 Stringer 1 quoted "the case Of *E«y. Grant to show that the prosecution was 'justified in looking through the defendant's jbooks in order to make out a case against him. Detective, Fahey stated 1 th~at the; defendant's premises were searched on Jan. 29, and la quantity of books relating to horseracing found therein. The documents produced -were found on defendant, y They were a cheque from William Wailes and {a statement of accounts between Wales and the defendant.. In one of the books f. there was an entry in the name of Groper, relating to the Wellington Cup. There were other entries relating toithe Nursery Handicap and the Telegraph: Handicap. In another book, a ledger, witness found a statement corresponding with, that produced^ It was an account in the 'name of , Groper, showing the balances brought down from the other book. Mr Stringer produced' a certificate of the amount paid by Sfc Michael in the Wellington Cup. _ -William Wales, tobacconist, carrying on business in Lyttelton. stated that he had a banking account in liyttelton. He would not say whether the cheque* produced was his, as he-imght or migiht not incriminate ijiaself by answering thfe i question. ".'' \He might be uicrimahated 1 in a charge of betting at tbtalisator odds. '/>."' For the defence, Mr Harper called Walter Thomas Parsons, •wilto stated that lie was at the Wellington Racing Club's meeting in January last. Mr Baraertt was «lso at the meeting. 'He -went wp wit>lt -witness on Jan. 18, and they stayed together in Wellington till Jan. 27. ' (Mr Harper Eaid that tie evidence led by .the prosecution ». was far from conclusive. It- had not been nroved .Biow IBarnett came into possession of the documents found dn j him. or who was the originator of those documents. There was'nb evidence to show; tihat- • 'Barnett had entered into any contract f j with Wales or "Groper>." , . i ; >Mr Stringer replied, contending that the | defendant should have endeavoured to re.fute what evidence had been brought against him. i Mr 'Beetham said that the provision made by the Act under which the charge was laid was more in the nature of a protection for the i totalisator . than anything else. The only inference he could -draw inf the present icas-e was ..that there Jjad j%S^otaEsata£j be'fting-witff^'"Ortiperf alias r TL l !ie evidence went to show that, mnd the de-fenda-nt had not tried to refute it. TEe defendant would defined £5, and if Hie could squirm out of the matter <by legal subtleties, ihe would have to do it by appeal. All | he could W was that if the defendant could do this the law under which he was ; charged was a dead letter. I Mr Harper asked that the fine might be altered to £5 Is in order to allow the right of appeal, but 'Mr- Beetham replied that he never altered a fine for anyone. A further charge was then preferred against Bnmiett of betting at "tote" odds with one Frank Hancox on the result of certain races at I the Takapuna, Racing" Club's Summer Meeting. A letter was pro-dot-ced 1 from Honcox showing that he had had transactions with the defendant in, weeing matters. This letter, whddh arranged for further bets, was found in defendant's office, and defendant's letter-bodies Elbowed! that he had corresponded with Hameox. Frank Haracox, a. compositor at Asihiburton, was called, and' declined to^ identify the letter, on. the cro\ind that ifc mighb 'tend to incriminate him under the Gamimg Act, Mr Harper submitted that tfte case was a weaker one thorn the last, the evidence) being the mio«t m*ajrre tbat could posribly be broua-ht. The betting mi^ht be •straigbftout bettimg ot any otheir betting. His Worship said that there was evidence of a bet, but nothing to sihow Glow it was to bo decided. The oase must tlenefcce be dismi*sed. Mr Beetham said that he understood 1 tlbiat the conviction just entered iro was the -first against Barnett. He could assure Mr Harper that if his client were convicted again he would be given, ample opportunity 'to appeal. .