BOOKMAKING CHARGES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16584, 17 November 1921, Page 5

BOOKMAKING CHARGES.

THOMAS LONG CONVICTED. A charge of bookmaking against Thomas Long was heard by Mr Justice ■ Adams and a common jury of twelve ;at the Supreme Court yesterday. The charge had been heard previously during the current sessions (on Friday, November 4), but as the jury disagreed a retrial was ordered. A verdict of guilty, with the strongest recommendation to mercy, wag returned yesterday. The charge against Long was that, on August 6, at Christchurch, he carried on the business or occupation of a bookmaker. He was represented hv Mr F. D. Sargent, with him Mr W. Cracroft Wilson. Mr A. T. Donnelly conducted the case for the Crown. Mr Donnelly outlined the ca.se fori the Crown. He said it would bo shown that defendant made bets in the public bar of the Cafe de Paris Hotel and on the Addington trotting racecourse, using a double printed chart. He operated in a small way, with 5s or 10s doubles. Evidence oil the lines of that heard at the previous hearing was given by Police Constables Brazier and Best and Detective-Sergeant Gibson. Mr Sargent said the defence would show that Long was not carrying on the business of a bookmaker. Private betting was not prohibited by statute. Long had been employed as a slaughterman during tho season, and by a spraying company when the bets were made. Evidence was given by Philip Ie Rrun. a clerk in tho office of Thomas Berth wick and Sons, ; Frederick Ellis, union secretary ; Bertrand Priestley, of the Imperial Spraving Company ; (Charles Edward Baldwin, president of the New Zealand ’Workers’ Union, concerning the employment of accused. Mr Sargent, addressing the jury, said that betting legislation over a course of years had had a rather curious run. His Honor: Are we concerned with a historical survey of the legislntion? Mr Sargent: I submit I am entitled to put to the jury all the facts regarding the law. His Honor: What the law is, certainly. The question is what the law is to-day. If what von wish to say is to elucidate the present law. you may proceed. Continuing, Mr Sarorent said it was perfectly clear that the law of 1920 did not make betting illegal. Tt could be done privately or on the totalizator. The mere making of a bet did not make a man a bookmaker. Constable Best had suggested a bet, and it was madeThe onus then lay on defendant to show that he was not carrying on the business of a bookmaker. He submitted that witnesses had done that. The case against Long was the weakest one could conceive. If on such a case the jury found a verdict of guilty then many law-abiding citizens would be in danger of imprisonment. Mr Donnelly said it was undisputed that the evidence by the police officers was true. The people in the bar addressed Long ns “ Long Tom,” people in the bar perused what he possessed, and apparently accused made notes of money received. The constables simply walked up to him and made bets with him. The onlv conditions which had to be fulfilled bv anyone wanting to make a bet with accused were possession of money and readiness to accept the odds offered. Defendant carried on bookmaking as a matter of business. The jury were bound ns a matter of honour to give an impartial verdict on the evidence before them. They were not concerned with the ethics of the business or that defendant was carrying on the business in a small way. His Honor said that the facts in the case were clear and undisputed. The onlv defence was that the defendant’s acts were not within the Gaming Act of 1920. That was met bv Section 4 of the Act. It harl been proved beyond doubt that he had offered to make bets. A man might carry on a number of separate businesses and yet carry on each and all of them. The fact that defendant had been employed as a slaughterman did not disprove that he had been carrying on tlie business of a bookmaker. The conclusion was irresistible that Long, had been carrying on the occupation of. a bookmaker. Under the circumstances there was only one verdict which the jury were entitled to bring in consistent with their oaths. His Honor read Section 5 of the i Act to the jury at the red nest of Mr Sargent. He said that in this case tho section did not apply. Tho jury retired at, 4.51 p.m. At 5.35 p.m. they returned a verdict of guilty, with the strongest recommendation to mercy. Long was remanded until Friday morning. Bail was disallowed. FREDERICK DACRE’S CASE. A charge of bookmaking against Frederick Dacre followed Long’s case. Mr O. S. Thomas represented accused. who pleaded not guilty. Mr Donnelly said that on August 3, in Grand National Week. Police Constable Brazier was introduced to accused opposite the Cafe de Paris Hotel, and saw him in possession of a double betting card. The constable and accused then retired to the right-of-way bv the hotel, where betting transactions took place. Accused gave receipts for the money paid on the bets. Afterwards the two entered the bar of the cafe, and accused apparently made bets with people present. Later, in the A 1 Hotel, other bets were made. It might be contended that accused’s betting transactions did not constitute the business or occupation of bookmaking. He suggested that the jury might find that a man was a bookmaker who carried on betting for profit, and showed he was prepared to bet with anybody who had got the money and was prepared to take the odds. The facts showed that accused had been \ carrying on a bookmaking business in j Constables Brazier and E. M. Best ; gave evidence. Mr Thomas said there was only one ! thing to do in the circumstances, and j that was to lay all his cards on the j table. He was going to do something ! which he did not know had been done j in New Zealand beforo. He was going j to put accused in the box and let him j tell his own storj’. He was in regular j employment—the foreman in a large : concern in Christchurch. The first | time he had anything to do with books j was at Easter time. Two or three of j the hands under Dacre’r foremanship j asked him to get up a book. He offered *> to run a sweep, but after some per- j •masion agreed to make the double up. j He found that it was a large responsibility. because he could not get his card full enough. He then allowed the men to bring friends to him. but after all he only got £4 10s, and he lost 10b ] on the card. When August came along his men again asked him to run a caret He decided to take another chance, but found hi= card short, and again friends were brought in. He did not make a nenny piece on the cards being content to get them square. The only chance he had of making profit was that outsiders would win. This did not- happen nnd he did no! make money.

j Accused, foreman for Jamieson, Ltd.. • Christchurch, gave evidence on tho • lines of his counsel’s opening. He said i that his cards were run on tho same ! principle as a sweep—all flat rate. ! Prior to the Easter autumn meeting he had had no transactions of tho sort. The only chance he had of making money was “two rough ones winning.” At the Grand National meeting his cards contained no “ skinners.” “Clean Sweep won,” said accused, “and swept me out.” The three instances of which he had told the Court were the only instances on which he had run doubles. Mr Donnelly : Why did tho men come to you to act as bookmaker?—lt was made up among ourselves, and I kept the book. In further reply to Mr Donnelly, accused said that on one chart he “ laid off ” until the acceptances were out, so that everyone would have a chance. Constable Brazier did not take the card from him in the street. A friend took it to him. Brazier called him up, saying he did not understand it. Accused then picked the constable’s horses for him. He did not know where the chart was now. “Who introduced Brazier to you?” asked /Jr Donnelly. Witness said it was a fellow-work- j man. He said Brazier was a cockle's son. “But,’' added witness, “he was not-.’’ , In reply to his Honor, accused said that he was at the A 1 Hotel because Brazier said at the Cafe de Paris Hotel that he would bring along a mate to make a bet. H. C. Jamieson, of Jamieson's, Ltd., • said that accused was regularly em- j ployed bv the firm. He was paid higher than union wages. Witness did not know of his carrying on anv book- ' making. He had paid strict attention to his duty. Cecil Walter Wood, an architect, ' said be was architect of n job on which accused had been "employed for eighteen months. ' Addressing the jury, Mr Thomas said that the case was entirely different from Long’s. There was in the present case no suggestion of odds in the ordinary sense. He submitted that the test as to whether accused had carried on the business of a bookmaker was whether when he made the transactions complained of lie intended to embark upon tho occupation of bookmaking. ' Mr Donnelly said that accused made a virtue of necessity in admitting that I the constable’s evidence regard in or the ; betting transactions was true, and he j had to make some explanation of the ! occurrences. His storv contained some extraordinary coincidences. It was extraordinary that on two occasions employees of ...Jamieson’s. Ltd., happened to be in the hotel bars and desirous of taking up bets with accused which he had been unable to get from them

j beforo ancl had therefore been obliged to go to outsiders for. If lie had been running the books for the benefit of employees of Jamieson’s, Ltd., why were not some of them present that day ? The story told by ncI oused was a preposterous one—one such as would not be put up in a film produced by a low-class American picj ture company. His Honor said that the case on : which Mr Thomas’s definition of i bookmaker rested concerned onlv one transaction regarding sale of land. One j of accused’s -charts provided for 299 I bets—a very different thing. He set j out to make a large amount of bets i to gain the amount which would bring [ him safety in his chart. The transaction had been completely exposed to tho jury, and lie would say nothing , further. j The jury retired at 9.55 p.m. At 10.10 p.m. they returned with a verdict of guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy. The foreman said the jury considered the case was not a very serious one. j Prisoner was remanded until Friday ! morning for sentence. Bail was re- ' fused. I