INFERENCE DRAWN.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1069, 7 March 1911, Page 2

INFERENCE DRAWN.

IN WILLIS STREET FOR BETTING. JACKSON FINED X'2s. Henry Jackson, appearing on remand, was charged with being in Willis Street for the purpose of betting on February 23. On Friday last evidence for (ho prosecution had been tendered, and counsel for the defence.(Mr. T. M. Wilford) had obtained an adjournment, in order to marshal evidence on a certain point in which he stated that he had been taken by surprise. When the case was resumed yesterday, Chicl-JMeetive Broberg asked that, all witnesses for tho defence be ordered out of Court, and this was done. Mr. Wilford intimated that he would place accused m tho witness box. Henry Jackson, the accused, on being sworn, denied that he had made any bet in Willis Street on February 23. In reference to a statement made to Detective nammoud ("Who potted mo?"), witness remarked that he had not said'' that in (lie manner staled bv the detectives. The fact was (hat lie had been m the library for some time, and only wished to know why he had been picked out. On the day with which the charge was concerned he had arranged to meet a Mr. Cooper between half-past 2 and 3 o clock, but did not moot him. It was tn-Ti tliat k" I,ad mct EoVc ral • people in Willis Street, but ho had made no bet •with any of them. Cross-examined by Chief-Detective Broberg, witness said he would not swear that when brought lo tho police station, ho did not say, "I didn't intend to tako it on to-day." He did not recollect saying it, however. He would not swo.ir simply because there were two witnesses against him. The Chief-Detective: Are you a-book-maker? Witness: I used to be.- • , ' ■.'.".. The Chief-Detective: When did you cease to be a bookmaker? Witncfs replied that ho had given up the business when the new Act came into force, but ho declined to-answer a question as to whether he had been engaged in street betting before thai time. The Chief-Dctcclivc: Who gave yon those race-cards that wcro found along with your books? Witness replied they had been given to him by a friend. The Chief-Detective: Who is'the friendp Witness: I decline to answer. The Magistrate: Oh, yes. You must answer that question. _ On the question again being put to accused, he Said that a bookmaker had given the cards to him, but would not givo any name. * The Chief-Detective: All right, I will leave it at that. Archibald Cooper, labourer, in' the employment of tho Harbour Board, deposed that he had arranged to meet Jackson in Willis Street between 3 and i o'clock on Thursday afternoon, as he (witness) wished to pay him £2. Witness did not arrive until after i p.m., as ho had been unablo to raise the money. The debt had boen owing for some months, but Jackson had not reminded witness of it until they met by chance in the Cricketers' Arms Hotel ou the Wednesday evening. To Chief Detective Broborg: Tho appointment was for between 3 and 1 o'clock on the Thursday, afternoon. If Jackson s-aid that the appointed time was 2.30 p.m. he was wrong. Previous to seeing Jackson on the Wednesday night witness had not seen him for at least 21 hours. He had not been with Jackson on the Wednesday afternoon. ■ 'The Chief Detective: Now, look here, isn't it a fact that, for tho greater part of the Wednesday afternoon, you and Jackson wero loitering in Willis Street together? Witness (oftc.r being closely pressed) admitted that lie had been- with Jackson on the afternoon, but could not explain why lie met him again at night. It was merely a chance meeting. Mr. Wilford drew attention to the fact that, although the Chief Detective had Jackson's book on the table, ho/had not' cross-examined Jackson to prove that ho had made a bet. The Magistrate, in giving his decision, remarked that Section 2 of tho Gamine Act, 1910, defnied'-'tho offencowith; which accused w : as charged, and fixed the penalty at not less than J220 and not moro than ,£IOO. This was tho first charge of tho kind against accused, and his Worship did not think it worth while reviewing the evidence, as that had been dono by accused's counsel, who had drawn attention to every point in favour of his client. The whole matter could bo reduced to a very narrow, point, namely, whether accused was in Willis Street for the purpose of betting. There was corroborative evidenco of betting— the possession of tho race cards, tho possession of >£3 3fi. in silver, and the fact that he had been seen by the detectives to meet men in Willis Street, and then go into hotels with them. The inference could be drawn that accused was thero for the purpose of betting, and his M orship proposed to draw that inference. If he were wrong accused could oppcal. Accused would be fined .£25. Security for leave, to appeal was fixed at .£lO ids. and the payment of fine. •