BETTING AT TRBNTHAM

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3097, 30 May 1917, Page 6

BETTING AT TRBNTHAM

A FINE OF £20

TWO CASES WITHDRAWN

William Daniel Darvcll, Clarence Cecil Hopkins, and Leonard Mexted were charged at the Magistrate's Court .yesterday with being bookmakers, and betting on Trentham Racecourse. Mr. L. G. Keid, S.M., was on the Bench.

Chief-Detective Boddajn prosecuted, and Mr. H. F. O'Leary defended. Mi'. O'Leary objected to the cases being heard together, and Darvill's case was taken first.

Frank O'Connell, a- racecourse 'detective employed by the Wellington Racing Club, gave evidence that about 12.30 p.m. on April 21, at Trentham Racecourse, he was on duty near the people's enclosure when.he saw Darvill, Hopkins, and Mexted together. Darvill was standing near the. fence with a race-book in his hand. Hopkins was alongside, and Mexted was moving about, now talking to Hopkins and Darvill, and now accosting people who, after a short conversation, he brought back to his companions. Witness saw at least two who went with Mexted to the other two accused. These people spoke to Hopkins, then handed him some coins, which ho put' in his pocket. Hopkins spoke to Darvill, who wrote something in the race-book that he held. AVitness was about five yards from the accused, and watched them closely for about 10 minutes. Witness's next move was to go for Constable Le Fevre, who returned-with him. to where the accused were standing. Witness told the ac-c-nsed who he was, and said he suspected them of betting. Hopkins handed over his race-book, in which there were no entries. Mexted also handed over his hook, and in it there were no entrieseither. In Darvill's book a, number of entries were found, antl witness asked Darvill what they meant. Darvill replied that they were only some memos. he had made to amuse himself. "Witness asked the three to go to the secretary's office with him, and they did so. On the way lo the office, witness fell in with Kractzer, another racecourse detective, and the latter accompanied the party. 11l the office, witness retained Darvill's book, but returned the other books to their owners. Witness had seeu another book in Hopkins's possession, and this he asked Hopkins to produce. It proved to be a programme of the first day's racing, 'and contained entries, only one r>v two of which witness could interpret. .It first Hopkins admitted that the book was his, but he later denied knowing anything of how it came to be , in his possession. Witness overheard Darvill saying to Kraetzer and Le Fevre, "Well, it's no good telling lies abouj it: we were betting." Before this, the three men had turned out their pockets, and Kraetzer had counted the , money they had in their possession. Witness removed the men from the racecourse. They made uo , fuss.

To Mr. O'Leary: Witness had never seen any of the accused in his life before. He could not deny that, they might have made investments on the totalisator.

Samuel Kraeber, a racecourse detective iu the employ of the New Zealand liacing Conference, said that Hopkins had in his possession .£59 in notes and £5 19s. 7(1. in silver and copper. Darvill had £10 in notes and ,£1 in silver, and Mexted ,£'22 ami some odd silver. Witness called Darvill out of the office with Constable Le Fevre, and asked him about the entries in his book. Darvill denied that they related to "tote betting," but lie afterwards said: "I might as well admit we were betting." There were in Darvill's book such entries as were made in "tote betting." To Jlr. O'Loary: Witness did not know the accused as 'bookmakers or reputed bookmakers. "Toto betting" was not the ordinary making of investments .on the totalisa'tor. In "tote betting" one did not receive a- ticket, but had an entry in the book showing the number of the liorse, the amount, and one's initials. "Tote betting" (or "tote odds") was illegal. Witness had no doubt that what Darvill said was an admission that he had been "laying the odds." If he had picked up Darvill's book by chance, he would have described it as a bookmaker's. Constable Le Fevre - and Detective Mason also gave evidence. Mr. O'Leary submitted that there was insufficient evidence to show that Darvill. was a bookmaker. He was a hard-work-in* man. against whom the police had nothing to say. Counsel further submitted that the police had failed lo prove that, Darvill'was betting. Tt was suggested that Darvill made -i" admission that he had been "tote lieltins, but all that Darvill meant tn admit was that he was putting money on Hie ™» eI »" c - Darvill was convicted and fined £20. The cases against Hopkins and Mcxlcd wore withdrawn.