GAMINS ACT & THE OLD RUSE.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1529, 27 August 1912, Page 2

GAMINS ACT & THE OLD RUSE.

BY. DETECTIVE. THE LETTERS AND REPLIES. At the A&gistrafo's Court yesterday William Cowan, Dnvidlloss, and Arthur ; Law came before -Mr. W. G. Kiddell, S.M., on a chargo of having published double charts relating to betting on horso races. The information was' laid under the Gaming Act, 1808. Mr. M. Myers appeared for the three defendants. Sub-Inspector O'ShoaJhan conducted tho cases for the police. The case against Arthur Law was called', first, W. Cowan's next, and David Ross's third. The Letters, and "Yankee Jack's" Replies. Detective-Sergeant Cassells was tho first witness. He stated that on July 12, 1912, ho had written to Arthur Law from the liailway Hotel, Lower Hutt, under the name of "A. Morris," asking Law to Kind by return post one of his double cards for the coming races at Trentham. Un Ju,y l(i ho had received a reply, enclosing a betting, card. The card was simply enclosed in aa envelop, and was marked "Yankee Jack." On July IG, ho (tho detective) again wrote to defendant, under the name of Morris, acknowledging tho receipt of tho card, and asking defendant to book him a certain bet at the prices quoted on tho card. Ho also enclosed a postal order for 10s. On July 2!) he wrote once more asking for a card lor tho, Chrsstchnrch Grand Rational meeting, and a reply (enclosing the card nsked for) was received on July 31. Both tho cards were marked "Yankee Jack." ft was common knowledge that "Yankee lack" was tho sign used by Law in such transactions. Personally,, however, .'!>- tectivo Cassells admitted that he did not know that "Yankee Jack" was Law's sij?n until he wrote to him as stated. Mr. Myers objected t? such evidence j?iven as "common knowledge." If it was 1 » fact it could.he proved; if not it was not fair evidence. Cross-examined by Mr. Myers, Detective Cassclls stated that, at the time that he was corresponding with Law, he was also writing (under tho name of "Morris") to three other alleged bookmakers. Ho received the replies from the proprietor of tho liailway .Hotel, 'who knew him as Detective Cassells. ■ He did not know any actual Morris living' at the Hurt. XMv. Myers: Is it n-fact that Law's namo does not appear'on any of "the cards? Detective Cassells: Yes; some book-makers-usa. their, names; others do not.. "'Mr. 'Myers':' "Would you have expected a reply to your letter if you had signed it Cassells ? Detective Cassells: No; in fact, I did not.think ho would reply to "Morris." Senior-Sergeant Rutledge was called next: Ho stated, inter alia, that it was common knowledge that "Yankee Jack" was really Arthur Law. F. K. Beamish, clerk at the General Post Office, produced the post office order corresponding to tho block slip retained by Detective Cassells , and paid to Arthur Law's order. The order was endorsed "A. Law."- ' .■ "C.C.". and More Letters. Evidence for tho-pblieo in. Cowan's case wits given next. The testimony of Delectivp Cassells was similar to that given in the. case of. A. Law; except that (after having .received batting cards' marked "C.C.") -when ho wrote making a bet and enclosing a;P.O..order for ss),.he received a'.reply,, returning', the P. 0.; order and intimating that the writer had made inquiries and found that "A Morris" was nst known at tho Railway Hotel, Hutt. This letter was signed by Cowan. ' Senior-Sergeant Rutledgc said that he knew defendant to be a bookmaker, and had received cards marked "C.C." from him. ' ' 'Gross-examined by Mr. Myers, witness admitted that ho had never spoken to defendant in his life, and had never had a "bet with him. Nevertheless ho knew that "C.C." was his sign. Ho knew this froin hearsay and from general inquiries which;, ho, had made. . Mr. Myers again contended that this was unfair evidence; "Y.Z,"—More Police Evidence, VTlie only difference in Detective Cassells's ovidence in tho case of David Koss was that, when ho had written, making a bet on certain cards marked "Y.Z." (which ho had received in reply to his fir.st let- j ter), he had received a reply signed by Ross, returning the postal order, and stating that the writer had ceased doing business, far some considerable time. ■The matter of "common knowledge,",as affecting the identity of "Y.Z." again came up, and Mr. Myers onco more ..objected. " 'Nature of the Defence. Mr. Myers submitted that all three informations niust.be dismissed. Thero was no evidence of publication within the meaning of Section 31) of the Gaming Act, 1908. , The cases in question were distinct from the case of Scott and Martimlalo v. Kemp, on which the police were apparently relying to secure it conviction. He (Mr." Myers) knew that his Worship was bound to libido by that case until it is overruled, and he therefore wished to point, out th 6 differences between the two cases, lit the Scott and Martindale caso the document was admittedly sent by them, (Scott and MaTtindale), and it was sent without any prior request. Tho name Scott and Martindale was upon a card which, together with the bettingsheet, was enclosed in an envelope. But in these cases there was nothing to indicate who the sender of tho documents to "Morris" . was. Moreover, these documents w'cre sent in answer to a written request for thorn, which had not been so in the other case. It could not, therefore, bo contended that thoy were "published" to "Morris"--a fictitious person. Then, again, the sign "A.8.C." m the Scott and Martindale case was directly referable to Scott and Martindale, but in these cases tho evidence given by the police officers'would not do. They stated that they knew these men to bo bookmakers, bnt they had not called outside evidence to prove that. Mr. Myers also traversed other points in defence. His- 'Worsliip reserved his decision. OTHER CASES. Michael Gregory and Sidney Gill woro charged ".with, insobriety at the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning:.. The former was hired M or seven days imprisonment, and the latter JBI or 48 hours imprisonment..: Christopher Fane, for a similar offence, was fined M or three days imprisonment.. , A long .list of the names of defaulters 1 from military -service under tho new Defence Act was before the Magistrate s Court vestcrdav morning. A number of names were withdrawn in Court and somo of tho offenders escaped with a caution and a warning to shoulder their personal obligations to the State. Harmful Fitzmauricc, Joseph Tane, and Albert Davidson were fined £1 with Court Costs Vs. W. A. Connolly. Hayden Algar, and Harry Clark were fined 10s. with 7s. costs. John Joseph Henry Murray, Walter Wood, Colin Lovell, and Norman Hoidemstiom were fined 557, with" Ts: costs. Paul Stratford, W. Garrod, H. E. Free, R. J. Donaldson and John Sydney Guildford wero ordered to pay Court costs (75.), and P. A. Caloinni, William George Hughes, and William James Peck were fined ss. . Samuel Saunders was fined .E3 for using threatening behaviour imd wiis. further fined M with, an'alternative of 21 days in prison for iiideceiicV, 'Hcnrf Peter Webster, who was before tho Conrfc on. ft chavgs of theft, was remanded', till August 28. , George Wallace liclly tvftj sentenced to three months' imYirisojimont oh - three separate charges of indecency, tho sentences to riin concurrently.