W. V. WHITTA'S CASE.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17120, 15 April 1921, Page 6

W. V. WHITTA'S CASE.

COURT 07 APPEAL ARGUMENT (runs AssooiATrojr TKUCOfux.) . , WELLINGTON, April tt& ' The Court of Appeal was CT S»I| tlhis afternoon in< hearing tho <*»§§ the King v. William Vivian Whitwu The case was stated for the opinion of the Court of Appeal by Mr JustiM Herdman. The accused was arralgnM at the February sittings of tho Bupwtt» Court at Christchurch on four cotrati, charging him undor tho Gaming Amend* mont Act, 1020, with carrying on business as a bookmaker. At the trial* counsel for tho accused, objected. to tho admission of certain evidoncc, vis.:— m (1) Evidence tending to provethsi ml carrying on business a* a bookmaker, the accused's activities extended to Australia. (2) Evidence tending to prove thai * ; son of accused earriecTon business M«t bookmaker for and on behalf of tho o*» cused. < (3) Evidence which tended to prover tlhat tho accused had carried on bu«no«( as a bookmaker prior to the date of thji coming into operation of tho Guniny Amendment Act, 1920. At the trial the Judge (Mr Jtatftto* Herdman) admitted this evidence, butt stated a cose for the opinion of the* Court of Appeal as to whether such evidence ihad been properly admitted. : At the hearing this afternoon, Mr W. C. MacGregor, K.C., SolicitorGeneral, appeared for the Crown, aiHl Mr M. J. Gresson, with him Mr 0, 9. Thomas, for the accused Whitta, , ; Mr Gresson, in the couiwt of hi* argument, maintained Mat tho mere fact ? . I that Whitta. carried on u business that was perfectly legal when it was so Ctr* . ried on was no proof that he would *ott» tinue to carry on tho same business" when it became illegal. Tho Solicitor-Gonera! contended: (1) That evident* was admissible to inn* ICint the acts complained of wem done Hi the carrying on df an established liusinesa; and (}) to provo the status of the nccusod as a bookmaker. Tho Court reserved its decision.