THE BETTING CASE

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 44, 15 November 1917, Page 6

THE BETTING CASE

FRASER CONVICTED

FITZGERALD AND M'WILLIAMS

ACQUITTED

SENTENCE ON FRASER DEFERRED

The hearing was yesterday concluded if the case in which Frederick Camp>ell Fraser, John Ejward Fitzgerald, and rohn M'Williams w.-'re, charged with conipiring to defraud bookmakers of money jy means of no-reply wires put in after ;iie result of the race, on which the bets ivere mado was known. In addition to :he general count of conspiracy, there yere separate counts against each of the jrisoners of attempting to defraud. The Chief Justice (Sir Eobert • Stout) iresided. and Mr. P. S. K. Macnssey ippeared for the down. Fraser was by Mr. T. M. Wil•ord, Fitzgerald bv Mr. A. Gray. KG., jnd Mr. A. W. Blair, and M'Williams by Mr. n. 7. O'J^aTy. 'Further evidence for the defence was jiven. M'Williaras's Defence. Arthur J. C. Talbot, Superintendent of :he Telegraph Office, stated that two or three days after July H M'Willmms call»d to see him in connection with the racing telegrams. Witness said that the matter wns not in, his hands. M Williams said tlmt if: there was any fraud l,e intended to ask the posW« to prosecute. Some d&rs ljter. iTOil iwns showed witness a copy of a Christchurchreceived telegram I" W. Widen Christ, shnrch. and asked Tf Hie handed-in time m It was correct. The time was 11.29, m \ witness meant .that it ha<l been correctly transmitted from Wellington to Ohristchnrch. M'Williams appeared to be very much unset. He appeared to bo looking for information, hut did not get anv out of witness. John M'Williams entered the witnessbos and told the same storv as he told In the Magistrate's Court. He denied al knowledge of anv intention to defraud hTbokmakers.'a.nd stated that wh.n there was a doul)t. about the matter■ he returned the money of one of tho bookmekers. , ~ , r TJnder by >'r. ma cawv witness said that lie was first satf d that there was son, ; tbb, wrong with the wires when Mr. Blair (solicitor! aid to him: "T hear Fraser lias made a Meanest of it" Witness replied: "Goon! Nonsense! Blair said: us To Mr Wilford: Ton had no Interest, M'Williams, in the .£SO worth of wires sent in the names r.f Bowles and Arthur, which would hare meant ij tho bookmakers had pn..d? r Witness: None. Mr. o'J.eary. in his address to the iury, said that the case Tind attained Considerable notoriety,, and the jurymen must have heard many opinions exprcas--3d about it. It was only necessary o remind the inrymen that with their rS responsibilities tbey must forge hose opinions. The three accused it should be explained, did not stand or •all together, and one might be acmutd quite independently of he others NVe? in' the court had there been a case in which there was such orerwhAnuw evidence of innocence as was jo he Been "n the case of M'Williams. M'Will.ams m .in such a position as any owner of -o-reply wires who had lent lib te rnms mieht find himself in. Al w u ta«!taT«a that he could easily toSand why Fraser was unwitting to ivoth name of the lio.-6e-becaa.se Cor desired, not to reduce ; the dvv - lend. It was clear, however, thatlff Sams had mado strenuous -'Sorts to obain the name. Of the six wires written iut by M'Williams, five were no-reply "res and so long as they were put in few minutes "before the advertised starting time of the race, they would be ccented. Bob Law's wire was not a o-repy wire. It was from M'Willmnis, nd read "Got ten on for me San ebastian" Law said that that wire, to a*—«ntsi •ime M'Will ams said that ho mstiuct "hat the race was to lie run, and the f n,o borse ascerta med before tho 1 -" le °L sent If M'Williams knew aco had to be run and the Tf the horse ascertained, would mme of the lioise a gewmd •«/" ta"?;°vs; ?. •"«■ :::: «s>;&** S n a man like Mr. wrote, wii > i, riditim I? **« '['„,;, a Up to >hni J« Jl« « t J g," anil 1» transaction ' ra T S ,r^e e was an even, stronger item „ TU'Willinms's favour. It was tnatwmii S'S that'there was some-,«-iv with the observation tnal apprfi nHv there was something wrong mid ! hat he :.s an honest man could not ■etain the money any longer. Mr. Gray's Address. Mr Gray, on behalf of f*W°}fa nid that the jury might start with the ssumntion that the three accused had lwavs previously borne honest reputarand that they had always been men if intcrity and uprightness. The case Ja tort hem rose out of the suspicion, o .bookmaker that something was w. on oecause the telegrams reached him, as °s id somewha later than they shouU lave done. Martindale went to the Post Dffice suspecting that seething was ,vron". Ko was very much interested. S.e did not want to pay away a large 'am of money if he could success iphold «>e Pdice theory that some fraud bad been committed. . Counsel desired to draw attention to ,n extraordinary thing about the eyilence of Miss Driscoll, the young lndj mpToyed in the telegraph office in tho Government Buildings. At an early stage -ho nut her signature to a short memorandum in which she said in effect that rr Fraser writing the name of the horse in the telegrams, and that he. re turned them to her at 11.40. Counsel Km to contrast (hw with what she Sunreme Court she said thai, a tew minutes elapsed, she was not sure how '"S'kmann and M'Villy before tfey mw Praser, d scussed how „ ie ,' r ""' nm Id have been committed. The theory „me in. All that counsel could say w nt if he tolegrnms were linmled hack 1 he laV at 11.34, the rapidity wit which the confederates on the stand at T entham, on the railway platform »f Tre itham and in the railway office WeU n ton and in the Government nuildi."s acted, must have been someEF2 "sss- js «

•onl position wns from his client's point )F view, unci it was desired at present mlv to point out that irlial Fraser might lave said on that occasion was not ovi(ence against Fitzgerald. Eraser was itatcil to hnvo said that Fitzgerald was ware of the purpose and the method to >e adopted in connection with the telegrams. Assuming for the moment that :he words were uttered as put, they boro i perfectly innocent construction, consistent with absence of guilt on the part )f botTi of' Eraser and Fitzgerald. The nirposo was to make bets with bookmak■rs, and the method was to use no-reply ivires and put tliem in shortly before lie race. Markraann and M'Villy had inturallv been prejudiced from the outset by their view that a fraud had been Mmmitted, nnd they were seeking to nnke Tiie facts fit in with their theory. If FitzperaM had been a parly to n fraud of the kind alleged, he would have made arrangements to get more monej on, so that he might get a bigger return, ft was nb3iird to suppose that Fitzgerild would have been content with such i small bet if there had been anything ivrong. Fitzgerald, on the course, knew From a hint that Fraser had given him that the horse to be backed was probably either Glendalougli or San Sebastian. As a matter of fact, Fitzgerald personally backed Glendalougli, who was a loser. If Fitzgerald knew that the horse that won was certain to bo the one that tho money was on,, why die lie arrange with Fraser that tho lattoi should let him know after the Tace? II was clear that if there was a fraud the sc'hemo and the method were unknown to Fitzgerald and M'Williams. A Contradiction. Mr. Gray referred to tho statement made by Martindale flint Fitzgerald askpel him for uerniiss-fo/i to put in his telegram nt the Government Buildings, and 16~ Fitzgerald's contradiction of the statement. Counsel asked the jury to accept Fitzgerald's testimony in preference ta Hint of Martindale. Martindale bad told M'Williams a week or two later, with apparently, an air of surprise, that hi found that the telegrams had been put in at a place he didn't like. Was this second statement consistent with the first statement? Fitzgerald's conduct throughout had been frank Rnd onen, What reason had Fitzgerald to believe that there had been a fraud? And whj should ho go to the police, as it had been suggested he should have done! Fitzgerald had offered to co-operate with M'Williams in probing the matter to tin bottom. There was no act of Fitzger aid's, and no statement made by him. that showed a guilty mind. On Behalf of Fraser, Mr. Wilford, addressing tie jury foi Fraser, drew attention to the motto or the royal' coat-ol'-arnis above His Hon our's head. It was, he said: "Honi soil qui inal y pense," and meant "Evil be to him who evil thinks." Counse, thought that he could show, before the case was over, that the whole trial was caused by M'Villy and Markmanr "thinking evilly." Markmann had go! Miss Dnscoll, cross-examined her oflcclively, and had obtained a statement in writing signed by her, upon which he was satisied that Fraser was guilty Markmann said that he went about investigating the matter from one poinl of view—ho wanted to know whether the telegraph officials had been doing wrong, M'Villy proceeded (he said) in order tc SJe whether tho telegraph wires- froa Xrentham to Wellington had been wrong, ly used by an officer of his Department Counsel's answei' to that was "Fudge!' The statement given by Miss Briecoll was not written by her, but by Markmann, and her signature at the bottom, il compared with that on the two depositions that she had made, would serve to show what an agitated 6tate sho was in. The document was not a true one, for a start, and it was the elocumenl on which Markmann and M'Villy has relied, when they formed the conclusion that Fraser hail been guilty of doing wrong. Mi-. Macassey, to make anvthins of the' evidence that Miss Driscoll had given, must rely on it as it stood before the witness had been cross-examined. It cross-examination she stated that she was not prepared to swear that Fraser wrote anything in tho telegrams that iverc sent away, or that he might not have written on tho forms which Mr. Wilford had shown to her in the course of the examination. Tho charge was line of conspiracy, and Fraser was supposed to bo the man who worked the swindle. If Fraser did not actually write tho name San Sebastian in tho telegi-ams after ho received them Iwck, the case was ended. What proof was before the jury that the accused wrote tho words in any one of the telegrams? Che only lerson besides Fraser who could know whether ho wrote the name in afterwards ivas Miss Driscoll. The jury wore not lealing with a common crook, who had journeyed about tho country from one ?aol to another. They were (lealing with i man who had as clean a record as any nan, and they were invited to put the irst smudge on him. Frasor's "Admission." Counsel further submitted that Frasoi ■lid not make an admission to Markmann md M'Villy, and ho asked tho jury to treat the evidence of M'Villy as ot no Miisenueiice. Mr. M'Villy had shown that lie was not unprejudiced in the natter M'Villy, in making Iraser stand for three hours in his presence, was creatin" him as no Britisher should be reared. He had made a statement on iath which counsel would ask tho jury ;o disbelieve abolutely. It was that tfhich referred to what Hodges said when M'Villy sent for him in the' cpnrse of the interview with Fraser. M Villy said in the Magistrate's Court that .when Hodges was asked to explain why he mentioned "taking down the bookmakers he ave no explanation. The jury had seen Sim alter that statement m the Supreme Court, but what was tho effect that M'Vffly had intended to produce upon the Court by his first statement? Wai M'Villy's memory to be trusted if he orgot a fact that told in favour of th Hocused' There' was no evidence that dt given by Fraser that had been broken down by Mr. Macassey in cros* examination, and counsel .wanted to asK Mr. Macassey why he picked ou only 3 ix telegrams from the thirteen hi th purposes of the case. The fi»t that orae of the telegrams were writteni 11 nk and some in pencil, was consistent vitl, Fraser's statement that he wrote hem all out in the railway office wlieic he was frequently interrupted. \ Men nnmeel Bowles and Arthur had wired Fraser ou the day in question, asking him to put XlO for them, on whateyei horse he was executing a commwior on Mr Gilford dealt at some length I "th the matter of the timej the Wegram she should have marked them 11.27. The Crown's Reply. Mr. Macassey, in replying, said that (he reason that all the telegrams had not hem produced was that their Paction „•»« unnecessary. If a man burgled forty 0 8 ( s Ht was sufficient for the polcec n?ov that he burgled one m order secure a conviction. In this case there was a clear confession of Fraser's guilt, Fraser had no tip from the trainer or he owner of the horse, and he made, or, his own judgment, arrangements to put Ibis large sum of money on. So tar as Fraser was concerned, the case was nbsol.telv clear, and the Crown relied upon the acceptance by the jury othe cv,. donee of Markmann and M Villy. Mr, Macassev brief! v traversed the evidence given against Fitzgerald. His Honour Sums Up. His Honour, in summing np, explained that the jnrv could convict any one ol the accused of conspiracy, as the indictment chaTged them with conspiring toeer|ier or with some person or persons unknown. Ho reviewed fairly fully the evidence piven by Miss Dnscoll. who, he paid must be assumed to be a witness of truth. The question arose why Frasoi did not on receiving tho thirteen telegrams back, nt once sort out the Iwr which he said he wanted, nnd at once hand the other eleven back? If the iurv found Fraser not guilty they charged M'Villy and Markmann with perjury because these two witnesses had sworr that Fraser admitted to them that he had done wrong. There was the issue If they believed M'Villy and Markmann Fraser hail admitted that he wns guilt\ of receiving the news that San Sebaslinr had won, and of filling the name in ii I ho telegrams before he handed then back. On the other hand, did the jurj believe Frasor's evidence that he had not made those statements to Markmann am M'Villy? Concerning Fitzgerald. In the case of Fitzgerald there were three or four things against tho accused

It was clear from his own admissions' that he was a partner with Fraser in tho matter, and the only question was: Was Fraser's statement true that Fitzgerald knew the method that he was to adopt in tho transaction? His Honour referred to Fitzgerald's statement that Fraser refused to tell him tho name of the horse to bo backed, and asked the jury to consider whether Fitzgerald would not have insisted on knowing it. He also read the statement of M'Williams as to what Fitzgerald said to him on the course after the race. It was for tho jury to say whether Fitzgerald knew that the telegrams to be sent wero not to be sent until Fraser learned what horso won the race. Would the jury accept tho statement that Fitzgerald was a partner with Fraser and loft the arrangements to him? Case Against M'Williams Slight. The ease against M'Williams was very slight. It was only that he was a partner. It did not seem to His Honcjir that if M'AVilliame's statement was true that ,he told Fraser and Fitzgerald that they had to put in Law's telegram an hour before the race was run, and the other telegrams four or five minutes before, M'Willianw could have been conscious of any fraud. As to the question whether the jury should believe the evidence of Fraser against that of Markmann and M'Villy, there was the further consideration that if a. man once made a statement that was untrue, one might not be able to trust his word afterwards. L'Vaser reached the oflice on the Saturday at 9.45, when he ought to have been there at 9. He tendered the excuse that he was ill. Was that true? As a matter of fact, he did not leave Fitzgorald e office till after 9.

On Gambling. "I don't understand what is meant by 'good character,'" concluded His Honour, "if these men havo been in the habit of layiug totalisutor odds. If they have boen in the habit of doing that they have been in the habit of committing- a crime, becauee in our. Act a bet imposes on the person who makes it a liability to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding or to both a fine and imprisonment. It these people say they are good citizens when they lmve been violating tho law for years they have not yet learnt tho alphabet of good citiMr. Gray asked His Honour to direct the jury that statements mnde by Fraser to M'VillT and Markmnnn were not evidence against Fitzgerald. His Honour did 601 The Verdict. The jury, before retiring, p.cquitleil M'Williams, who was immediately discharged. After a retirement of about nil hour and ft quarter tho jury returned a verdict that Fraeer was guilty on all the counts against him Fitzgerald was found not guilty. Tho juiry added a. rider in which they expressed regret at the fact that although betting on totnlisator odds was illegal use was allowed to bo made of the Public Service to facilitate such betting. His Honour agreed with the expression of opinion contained in the rider, and remanded Fraser (ill 10-dfiy for sentence.