BOOKMAKERS FINES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19813, 3 December 1919, Page 7

BOOKMAKERS FINES.

MAXIMUM PENALTY. EARNING BY MAGISTRATE FINES AMOUNT TO £422 16S The maximum penalty of £IOO was imposed ou two bookmakers who were convicted at the .Magistrate’s Court '.his morning, before Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M., on charges of betting on licensed premises. In giving his decision the Magistrate issued a warning that future convictions of a similar nature would be followed by imprisonment, aa fines did not appear to act ns a deterrent against the bookmakers. Louis Curtis, of Dunedin, appeared on two charges of making bets at the "White Hart Hotel on November 14 ana 15, and also with distributing a document without the name and address ot tlio printer attached, contrary to tno "Printers and Newspapers Registration Act, 1008, Mr J. A. Cassidy ayncarcd for defendant, who pleaded guilty to all charges. Mr Cassidy said that the derendnut was a resident of .Dunedin and had not been convicted before on charges ot betting. Ho had come up to Christchurch for the races, and took a room at tho White Hart Hotel, where he was sought out by two gentlemen, auu where ho admitted having laid the bets. It was Carnival Week, and a gooa many people were engaged in picking their fancies, and - the defendant hail succumbed to tho temptation to make the bets at tho hotel. The defendant was not resident in Christchurch, ana was a man of good character. In view of it being a first offence, Air Cassidy asked his Worship to deal leniently with tho defendant. Sub-Inspector Mullany said .that tho defendant had not been convicted ot similar offences before,_ but in view of the prevalence of betting at the present time lie asked that tho full penalty should ho imposed. As there was another case of a similar nature coming on the Magistrate mi id lie would he,nr it before giving his decision. William Pollock, of Dunedin, for whom Air Cassidy also appeared, pleaded guilty to two charges of making bets at the Clarendon Hotel on November 11 and 12, and to threfe charges of distributing certain documents witnout the name of the printer attached.' Atr Cassidy said tho defendant admitted having made tho bets. Pollock was also on a visit from Dunedin, ana there was no question that his betting card was used for the purpose of making the bets. It was admitted that Pollock had been convicted before for similar offences and ho was a well known bookmaker, carrying on his business m Dunedin. There was no suspicion of dishonesty, cheating or swindling about the case, and ho honed the Magistrate would take that into consideration. Pollock had merely committed a breach of the statute. Betting was not a crime except when carried on in certain places.' Bookmaking was not illegal and the country did not appear to be desirous of making it ilicmil. The Government even charged income tax on bookmakers, knowing that tbev were bookmakers. It was not a crime in the ordinary sense; it was a half-tolerated crime, cxccnt when carried on in certain places. In support of his contentions Mr Oassicly quoted various judgments delivered on tho question. t The defendant would not go into the witness box and put up any plea. Tho facts were admitted. Sub-inspector Mullany said that the case was different from tho previous one, because tho defendant had been convicted several times before for similar offences. Air Cassidy: Only for betting ? The sub-inspector; Yes; they are all betting convictions. Ho asked for the full peiualty to bo imposed in each case* “ The Court in deciding which punishment to inflict in these cases is not concerned about tho ethics of horse racing or gambling, or the suggested hypocrisy of tho Government in legalising and receiving revenue from tho totalisator, and to somo extent banning the bookmaker,” said Mr APOarthy. “The point is that Parliamenlt, the duly constituted legislative authority of the Dominion, has laid it down that bookmakers shall not carry on their calling in certain places, as for example, common gaming houses, the public streets or licensed premises, or mako bets with infants. Tho bookmakers, notwithstanding the gradual increase in the fines imposed, have gone on defying tho law. moy mivo treated those tines as mere licenses to carry on an illegal calling. It is no part of the Court’s duty to call tho bookmaker by hard names. Tho Court’s duty, however, is to see that the law of tho land is not set at defiance with, impunity. Wo must now ascertain who is. tho strongest factor in tins Dominion-Parliament or the bookmaker. I have determined in each, or, these cases to inflict the maximum penalty. I will, however, take this opportunity of notifying the bookmak”rs Ikat in cases of future convictions lines will not bo imposed. Imprisonment will follow conviction.” Curtis was. fined £IOO on each charge or betting, in default one month's imprisonment, and £5, in default fourtoon days imprisonment, on the charge of distributing a. dociimont without the printer s name attached- His total Hues with costs, amounted to £206 Is, I cl ock was fined £IOO and costs, in default one month s imprisonment on each of the two charges of betting, and £o_ and costs, in default fourteen days imprisonment, on each of the withmif’+vP" ? f * distributing cards without the printer's mime attached. io 9 £216 l£ eS ’ mth C °' StS ’ W^l?h/ P ? licatiori of Mr Caaidv assrr* iD