MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1493, 16 July 1912, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Dcforc -Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.)

BETTING CHARGES. SIR JOHN FINDLAY ON GAMING ACTAND PRIVATE- LIBERTY. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday several informations wore laid under the Gamins Amendment Act of'JOlO. t John Scott was chained that, on June 27, he, being a bookmaker, did bet on premises of the Commercial Hotel with Peter Router. • A similar offence on July -1 was aisa alleged. Hairy Mnrtindale was also charged with having paid out on the bet made between Sovitrr and Scott—also m the Commercial Hotel.

Matthew Livingstone was charged with having bet with Soutcr on Julv ,1. Tho place alleged was the Commercial Hotel. Sir John Findlay represented Scott and Mariindale, and Mr. .!. J. M'Grnth appeared for Livingstone. Sub-Inspector Sheehan conducted the prosecution.

Scott's Case Called. The cases against Scott were heard first. Souler, w;ho is a police constable, pave evidence that, on June 27 last, he had spoken to Livingstone near the Commercial Hotel, nnd that Livingstone had given him a race-card, and, afterwards, had introduced him to Scott in tho bar of tho Commercial Hotel. Witness said that ho wanted 10s. on Sir Lethe, and had handed Scott a half-sovereign, and Scott had made an entry in a notebook, and had asked what witness's initials were. Witness had replied "J. 5.," and had then gone away. On July 4, he (Constable Souter) had a win gone to tho bar of the Commercial Hotel. Scott was there looking at a racecard, and two other men were beside him. Witness had said: "Five shilling on Merrimax," and had handed Scott ss. Scott had asked what race witness referred to, and witness had pointed to the maiden event. Witness gave his initials as "J. 5.," but Scott ma'de no entry, and,' in reply to a request by witness, remarked that he had no racc'-card to give him. Witness had acted throughout under instructions from Detective-Sergeant Cassells. Detective-Serjeant Cnssells deposed that I\2 knew the defendant to be a. bookmaker, nnd a brother of Scott, of Scott and Mavtindale. John H. Glcdhill, socretarv of tho Nanier Park Racing Club, don'osed that on June 25 races had l>oen held at Napier, and that a horse named Sir Lethe had storlod in the Steeplechase. Sir Lrflio had won the race, and had paid a dividend of £1 12s. Gd. James Baldwin, a racecourse detective, stated that he had attended the Gishnrno races on July i and fl. and had there seen Momma* start in the maiden event.

Sir John Findlav—"The Calling of the Bookmaker still Perfectly Legal." Sir John I'indlay remarked tlwt tho defendant was charged under Sub-Section .2 of Section 2 of tho Gaining Amendment Act, 1910. He believed that he was correct in saying that this was the first time that that section had been taken before n Court for interpretation. Before dealing with the. merits of the ease lie wished to make clear what was an indisputable proposition of law—that the calling nf a bookmaker was' still a perfectly legal Killing. It had never been otherwise, and in 1008 express interpretation had been given, so that if a man made his whole living by bookmaking ho was still following a calling which was quite legal. And to bet was a perfectly legal act. : It was only betting with certain persons and in certaiu places which were illegal,acts under our most recent legislation. Th» legislature had increasingly circumscribed the sphere within which* a bookmaker could carry on. his-.Jjiisiiiess. And tho most serious, most striking, and most drastic circumscription which had yet been made upon private liberty was "the'section under which informations wero laid. For offending under this section a .bookmaker was liable to a fine "of. .£IOO, and for the second offence to a sentence bf three months' imprisonment. It was one of tho maxims of the law that a man's house was. his castle, but a bookmaker to-day, no matter how reputable he was, dared not make a bet in his private room in the hotel in which he dwelt. Counsel' said that he was making theso observations to show that the severity of the law did not necessorily imply the imposition of a heavy fine on offenders. The defendant had dwelt at the Commercial Hotel for somo time.

Scott Fined £20. • Counsel wont'on to sny that lie wished to withdraw tho plea of not guilty, nntl to enter a pica of guilty respecting the first information. He submitted-that tho prosecution must fail respecting tho second information against Scott as it had not been proved that defendant was a bookmaker. This was not n matter in which the police ought to ask for a conviction on both information!! as the minimum penalty in each instance was Ho suggested that, the police should, therefore, withdraw the second information. His Worship thought' that the ends of justice would'be met by the imposition of a penalty in one case, and the withdrawal of tho second information. Tho police agreed to the suggestion. Defendant was convicted on the first information, '.vas fined .-C2O, and ordered to pay expenses (J!5 !)s.).

Case Against Martindale. In the en** agninst Martindale, Router gave evidence of his having collected money for Sir Lethe's win from Martindnle. Tn his evidence Hetoetive-Sergeant Cassells said that Martindale was of the bestclass '.oi bookmaker in . New Zealand. Kir John T'indlay submitted that this case should be dismissed. To be an offender under Sub-section :! (the clause invoked), the person charged, ho said, had to bo aware of the circumstances of tho bet upon which ho paid out; he must know, firstly, that the money which ho handled was in payment of a bet, and, secondly, that it was an illegal bet. A bet could not be illegal unless mode with an infant or in a prohibited place. Where was tho proof that Martindale had knowledge of these things? Subsection 3 was drastic, and required broad interpretation; otherwise- a message boy conveying the proceeds of a bet, or a barmaid who had wen asked by a bookmaker to "give this amount to so-and-so if ho comes in" could be incriminated, though they might bo qilito unaware that, they wero parties to a betting transaction. Payment, he continued, did not mean simply tho payment, by the messenger bv whom the money-was carried; it meant payment out of one's own money on behalf of someone who made tho bet. Harry Martindale then gave evidence that Scott Uiad handed him the money to give to Squter, but that witness had had no knowledge of tho circumstances of tho transaction. His "Worship reserved decision in this case. Livingstone's Case, ' Respecting the charge against Livingstone, Constable Souter sworo that Livingstone had given him a race card, and. at the same time, had remarked: "You should have a double." Subsequently he had' mndo a "double" bet with Livingstone. Tho odds had been .to to ss. on Lei Iteina in tho. Flying Handicap and Tui Cakabou in tho steeplechase at tho Gisliornc races. Detective Cassells said - that from his knowledge of defendant, and from inquiries ho had made, he had'come to tho conclusion that defendant was a. bookmaker. In addressing the' Court, Mr. M'Grnth submitted that as the prosecution had not brought evidence to prove that the defendant was a bookmaker, the charge must fail. Defendant- Livingstone was Called. He' denied thai lie was n bookmaker.- and that liR had niado a bet with Souter. fli< Worship reserved decision.

UTHKR. CASKS. ,!•'()]• insobriety, lioberl Coslello was lined ,tl, mid John Lewis Ids. for having behaved in a disorderly manner while ho was inebriated, Charles Ashler was fined -C 2. I'or ho.ving beon absent without leave f'-om the steamer Kuikoura, John Bernard Devine was ordered to forfeit two davs' wages, and to pay the cost of the court proceedings (75.), A chw-p of ha/rins awaulted' Jatnee BlmfcM and robbed binv. of 42 vwu^

made ngninst Hoary M'lhoy. Defendant was remanded till .inly 24. Kdwnrd Croft was fined 10-. for insobriety, and on a charge of his having stolon an overcoat, belonging lo Charles J'ird, ho was remanded till to-day. Gordon Hare was fined ,tl on a clioiyp of having ill-treated a horse. In an application by .Mary Marshmenl for separation from her husband •Alfird James Mnr.-hmcnt), anil for mainleikv.icc .and guardianship orders against him, evidence for the complainant was heard, and the case was then adjourned till h'aturHilv,