£100 FINE

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 5, Issue 20, 23 February 1942, Page 5

£100 FINE

another bookmaker charged ~ REPORTED BY "CLIENT" Information handed to the police in Gisborne by a bookmaker's clerk resulted in Joseph k Plamus 'appearing iin the local Court on Friday before Messrs G. A. Brabant and J. King, J's.P, charged with carrying on the business of a bookmaker. He was fined £100. Detective-Sergeant R. 11. Water 1 son, of Gisborne, explained to the Bench that it was known to the police that the accused was in business as a hairdresser and tobacconist in Whakatane, and that he had 'been carrying on the business of a bookmaker since 1928. He had been fined on a number of occasions, the penalties ranging from £25 to £75. The action, on this occasion was the result of a complaint from a bookmaker's clerk, of Gisborne, Fred Kenny, who was employed by Arthur Owen. The clerk had complained that he had laid a double on the Christchurch races with Plamus, the odds being £150 to £1. This double had "come off," but Plamus had sent £13 accompanied by a letter in which he stated that he refused to pay the full amount as he wished to get even with Owen, whom he complained had "beaten" him at one time. The Detective stated that although the clerk was also folloAving an unlawful occupation felt that he had certain rights. The accused had explained that some years ago he had lost a sum of money through the theft of a letter sent by post and had believed that Arthur Owen was: concerned in *his. In connection with the theft mentioned one other man had been tried in the Supreme Court at Auckland but had been acquitted. The clerk, Kenny was an innocent party in this dispute, and the policc did not know who was right or who was wrong in the matter. The Bench remarked that the accused had pleaded guilty' and therefore it was concerned merely with the offence named. In reply to the Bench Plamus stated that he did not owe any money having sent the full amount due. In naming the fine the Bench reiterated a statement made last week that it preferred such cases to be brought before a Magistrate, but this however could not always be done. The charge was more serious than other recent local offences of a similar nature 1 and the accused was liable to a fine of £500 or two years' gaol. The Bench would endeavour to follow the lead of the Magistrate and would make the penalty £100.