CHARGE OF BETTING.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19862, 3 February 1920, Page 6

CHARGE OF BETTING.

A DOUBLES TRANSACTION. INCIDENT IN AH HOTEL. A charge laid under the Gaming Act was heard before Mr S. E. M’Carthv, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court tins morning. The defendant was William Smith, and lie was charged that on December 11. being a bookmaker, he did bet on the licensed premises of the Masonic Hotel. Mr Thomas appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty ChiefDetective MTlveuey conducted the case lor the police. Charles Henry Finlay, barman at the Masonic .Hotel, said that on December it be saw defendant at tbe hotel. M itnoss beard something about a double and in company with a male wont out ol the bar and saw defendant m the back part of the bote!. The double was Rose Wreath ami Murikihu, which were running at the Woodville races (bat day. Defendant said lie would lay 33 to 1 on ibis double, lie then went away to the telephone anil on Ids return said to witness, “ Yoirre ® p t.” Witness understood by that that defendant had arranged the bet. Smith’s calling was that of a bricklayer. Mr lliomas: The suggestion is that be is the lung of the turf. 1\ it ness handed defendant £1 in connection with the bet, H)s lor himself and 10s for his mate. The. horses won mid witness received a chec|Uo for £3-1. This chutj tie was banded to him on tbe berry Road tram by a man named ‘lorry. Later on payment of the cheque was stopped. About a week after de- I fondant communicated with witness and asked him to meet him outside the i. niied .Service Hotel and bring his mate with him. Witness kept the appointment. Smith told him that he bad better return the cheque or else ho would find himself in trouble, as the (natter was already in Detective Gibson’s hands. A few minutes later, Detective Gibson oamo up. To Mr Thomas: He had been mixed up in gamine cases before. Hie bet on the double in question had been made. The cheque for £3l. was not for a bet that had never been made, and it was not becanse he feared he would get into trouble that he had told Detective Gibson of the matter. Terry who had Landed him the cheque on the car, had told him that he (witness) had got the cheque under false pretences. Mr Thomas: And did you not tell Terry that as he was only a bookmaker he could chase himself? Witness: I never said-anythin'? of the kind. • Mr Thomas: What is. your object in putting the scene'* of the plot in the back part of the hotel instead of the bar?Witness: Bets are not supposed to be made in a bar. Mr Thomas: Thank you. I did not expect to get that. I put it to yon that knowing that betting in a Var is illegal you have changed tho scene of the bet and that it was really made in the bar?' Witness; I deny that. Mr Thomas: Who produced the betting card? Witness: I don’t know.? Mr Thomas: Do you stand there and say you-did not produce the card? Witness: I did not produce it. I sometimes have a card given to me. Further cross-examined by Mr Thomas, witness admitted that ho had asked Smith where ho could lay tho double Rose Wreath and Murihiku.. He did not know that there were many inquiries for this double and that it might be hard to get. Witness denied that he had invented the double mentioned and that he had got the money under false pretences. He had fallen the cheque from Terry because bo was entitled to it. To the Magistrate: He did not know what connection Terry had with Smith. All he knew was tha f . Terry paid him the cheque to which lie was entitled. Archibald William M’Vca said that he and the last witness took the double. Rose Wreath and Murihiku, with Sfnith, in the back part of the Masonic Hotel. To Mr Thomas: No part of the transaction took place in the bar. All ho know about the matter was that the double was taken. He knew nothing about any preliminary conversations in the bar. Mr Thomas put further questions, to the witness, but all he would reply was “The double was taken in the* back part of the hotel, and that is all I know.” Mr Thomas: Were yon so “stunned ” that you did not know what happened ? Witness: Not too much of the “ stunned.” Mr Thomas; Were you at the Masonic Hotel at all on tho day in question? Witness: Certainly. Detective-Sergeant Gibson gave evidence that he met tho last two witnesses and defendant outside the United Service Hotel. Finlay: was telling witness of the hot made at the Masonic Hotel when Smith came up. Finlay continued to tell his story, and Smith started to tell his as well. Witness then took Smith aside. Smith said ho had taken two doubles on the day in question, and that Finlay had got tho cheque belonging to the other party. Defendant was a bricklayer bv trade, but for some months past he bad been doing a lot of betting. He had been m the habit of hanging about tho Square on race days. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Thomas said that tho evidence of Finlay and M’Vcn was absolutely unOne of the men must have lied. Counsel submitted there was no case to answer. The Magistrate said there was no case to answer as far as the evidence of these two men were concerned. However, there was the evidence of the detective to consider. Defendant must answer that. -Mr Thomas said that before defendant could he convicted it was necessary to show that he had been carrying on bookmaking as a means of livelihood. There was no evidence to this effect. The Magistrate; His admissions to the detective show that he got his living partly in this way. fhc defendant, in evidence, said that on the day in question ho had gone into tho Masonic Hotel to e et a drink Art soon as he entered Finlay introduced* a double hotting card and’asked witness if he could get the double on R ()S0 Wreath and Murihiku. Witness said ho did not think so. as ho had tried all over tlie place to get £2 on this double, but bad placed only HO-. Finlay then asked witness to got ].os on’ Rose, Wreath and Demagogue. Witness said he wond try, and went away to a public telephone. On his return he Void Finlay he had got the bet set at 20 to 1. Finlay said. “ Tell M’Vea you got it at 16 to 1.” He had not sot the bet ns an agent for a bookmaker, hut as friend of. Finlay. When witness heard that Finlay had got the cheque, to which he was not entitled, he spoke to him about it. Finlay told witness that he intended to stick to tho money, as the bookmakers were frightened to go to tho police. 6 To Chief Detective M’llrenev • Ho did not frequently set bets for people He bad sot Finlay’s bet to oblige him' He had never received a penny piqco for acting as an agent for a bookmaker. (Proceeding.)