"DOES IT MEAN GAOL?"

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1065, 2 March 1911, Page 6

"DOES IT MEAN GAOL?"

NEW GAMING ACT. DETECTIVE HECKLED IN COURT, LIVELY .PASSAGES. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, Henry' Jackson, appearing on remand, was charged with being in Willis Street for the purposo of betting on February -U. Chief-Detective Probers; prosecuted, and Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. Mr. W. 0. Hiddell, S.M., occupied the Bench. Detectivc Hammond stated that ho had known Jackson for about 18 months. On February 23—a day on which races were being held at Dunedin and Woodvilie— witness was watching the movements of Jackson. Ho noticed him first at neon in Mercer Street talking to a man, and, at 12.20 p.m., he was in Victoria Street. He noticed accused again at 12.2S p.m. in Willis Street, talking to a wharf labourer. At 1.20 p.m. he was in Willis Street, talking to someone, and subsequently went into Mercer Street. Returning almost immediately, he walked down Willis Street and went into the Empire Hotel, and later returned and went up Willis Street. After speaking ,to another man, ho went into the -Britannia Hotel. Detectivo Kemp was with witness for part of the time. Between 2 and 3 o'clock witness left Detective Kemp, and obtained a warrant for tho arrest of accused. The arrest took place at 3.-10 p.m., but, before going to the Police Station, Jackson expressed a desire "to go in and see his mate," but was told that ho could not do so. "Why do you Pick Me Out?" He then asked: "Why do you pick me out?" and, on the way down, ho wanted to know who had "potted him." When searched at the station seven cards were found in his possession, these containing the names of horses which were engaged at Woodvilie and Dunedin that day. One card referred to the previous day's races. His other property included a book containing names of horses, and amounts in cypher. The names of the races were not there, but the names of the horses corresponded to those which were competing at the meetings. The entries in the book showed that 1!) bets had been made with about 29 clients. In addition to the book there was also, a slip of paper on which some bets had been written down on Parablo (engaged at. Woodvilie) and Effort and Iranui (engaged at Dunedin). Accused also had .£lO 13s. in money, including 3 guineas in silver. On being searched at tho station, Jackson inquired: "Does this mean gaol? I suppose there's no get out of it? I didn't intend to take it on to-day." Witness then proceeded,to give evidence as to the movements of accused on February 22, when Mr. Wilford objected to any date being referred to other than the date mentioned in tho information. The Magistrate considered the evidence admissible, but remarked that he would take a note of the objection. The Jargon of tho Race Book.

Witness then detailed the movements of the. accused on the ' previous afternoon. On several occasions' accused had met men in Willis Street and had gone into hotels with them. , Witness knew that accused had been licensed as a bookmaker on racecourses. At other .times ho (accused) worked as a wharf labourer. Cross-examined by Mr. Wilford, witness said that Iho entries in the took were sufficient to prove bets. "AVcll, let us take one entry," remarked Mr. Wilford. AVitness read: "B Effort if funds; B Lupulitc." -Mr. Wilford: Where is that? t AVitness: "B Effort if f; B Lupulitc." "B" is the amount,- and "f" is funds. Mr.- Wilford: Why do you sav that? AVitness replied that ho l'elt sure of it —ho knew. Jlr. Wilford: AVell, what sum of money docs B stand for? AVitness admitted ho could not say what sum was represented, and, in answer to further questions, he said that ho did not tliiitk "F" stood for anything but "funds." "Af," in one place, was probably a mistake for "if," and "a," in another place, probably stood for a sum oT money. "AU" probably meant "all up," that was if there was any dividend from the first horse named, the money was to bo all invested on the second horse named. AVitness did not think that the seven cards found could have all been posted to accused by seven different bookmakers to induce him to bet with them. AVitness knew that the bookmaker had no legal standing now, but bookmakers still existed, and he knew accused as a bookmaker. He was not aware that, during the past six months, accused had earned ,£l2 16s. from one shipping company, and that he had also been employed by other companies, and by the Harbour Board, but knew that lie followed the occupation of wharf labourer at times. Echo of Tier Picture Case. Nor was witness prejudiced against witness for the part which he had taken in the "Tier picture case." AVitness said that Jackson had "dodged" him, because it explained the position. AVhen witness went into the Britannia Hotel on one occasion, accused was sitting on the settee, and he immediately rushed to have a drink.

Jlr. Wilford: I should say that he ought to stand alongside a glass all the timo while you're about.

Detective Kemp gave evidence corroborative of tho main points of tho previous witness's testimony, but was not submitted to such a lengthy cross-exami-nation. Rather Humorous Passage. . Mr. Wilford, in opening the defence, remarked that the evidence of the two detectives reminded him of Jlr. l)ooley's description of the Dreyfus trial. Counsel thought he could remember it, and proceeded to recite; General Jt- — then stepped into tho box. He said: "I haw the prisoner, your Worship, drinking wine on the Boulevard. 1 said to myself, he must be guilty. I had him closely watched. Closer than any man I know, but I could find nothing against him, and 1 said to myself, "Impossible! An officer in tho Trench Army and notli- ' ing against him! Ho must be guilty \" And so it was with the two detectives. They saw the prisoner in Willis Street talking to some men and drinking wine in an hotel, and they immediately said to themselves "He must bo guilty." They set a close watch upon him, but could' iind 110 proof of betting. But that was impossible—nothing against him? He must be guilty. The Legislature had decided that such cases as these should not go to a jury, although any other indictable offence gave the prisoner an opportunity of being tried by a jury. His Worship now sat. in the dual capacity of judge and jury, and must have the same kindly consideration of tho evidence as the jury would extend to it. No jury would convict on the evidence tendered. This was the first case of its kind since tho passing of the Act, and was a verv important one. Was it going to be laid down by his Worship that this flinisv kind of evidence was sufficient to convict? Continuing, counsel reminded his Worship that the charge related to Willis Street, and not to Mercor Street, Victoria Street, or any lane or hotel, and his Worship would have to be convinced that accused used Willis Street for the purpose of betting. He asked his Worship to consider the evidence carefully, and to say whether there was a case to answer. The magistrate considered that there was.

Position at the Finish. Mr. Wilford then ashed for an adjournment (o collect evidence to explain the movements of accused 011 February 22 us lie had bc?n taken by surprise.' Tic had witnesses in regard 'to February "3 but did not wish to call them yet. ' The magistrate said that lie would ignore the evidence relating to February 22, if counsel would bring forward his other witnesses. Mr. Wilford replied that lie would bring forward his witnesses if his Worship would cut out of his notes all tint referred to February 22, but, of course that could not be done, as the notes might be wanted in case of an appeal Counsel added that he preferred an adjournment at that stage. The hearing was consetnientlv adjourned until 11 a.m. on Friday. Accused was admitted to bail m £25, ami one surety of. i£2si