NOT GUILTY

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 121, 15 February 1921, Page 6

NOT GUILTY

CASES OF ALLEGED BOOKMAKING RETRIALS END IN FAVOUR OF ACCUSED i The retrials of two men accused of carrying on 'business as bookmakers, the first prosecutions, under the new Act, took place yesterday in the Supreme Court, before His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman, and both Matlthmv Livingstone and Jack Martindale were found not guilty, the jury in each case retiring for a fairly short period. The two men had been tried last week, but the jury had disagreed then in each case. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey represented tho Crown. Mr. T. Wilford, wiilh him Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell, appeared for the accused Livingstone, and (Im other accused was represented by Mr. M. Myers, with him Mr. 11. F. O’Leary. In the case of Livingstnno, Mr. Macassey said the jury was not concerned with any differentiation’between the totalisator and a bookmaker. Evidence would be produced showing that tho accused had made Lets with a constable on divers occasions. If accused had not been a bookmaker, the evidence would show that ho had at least been acting for a bookmaker, and that was sufficient for a prosecution under tho Act. Evidence for the prosecution was given hr Constables S. J. M'Cnllough and D. Murphy, and Chief-Detective Ward, similar to that given at (the first hearing. Tn summing up, His Honour said that there had been presented strong evidence that the accused had carried on the business of a. bookmaker. He had issueil his receipts from a book with a counterfoil, or block, and (the jury had seen that book. His Honour emphasised that tho discussion ou the case had been mostly on its lofin.l aspect, not controverting one single fact presented in evidence; and the jury had merely to decide whWthor the evidenc. justified a conviction. "If the jury has undisputed facts before it,” said His Honour, the members must, refer Ithe matter to their reason remembering their oath, and disregarding their sympathies. The.accused was discharged after tho verdict had been given.

The Case Against Martindale. In the case of Martindale, evidence was adduced similar to that draught forward in the Court below, and at the first tT FM the accused, Mr. Myers alleged that the witnesses for the prix,ecu non Md tried Yo make facts from inferences He criticised the legislation in reference to the offence, and said convicting anyone under such a stat.He should be quite clear as to the sahie of the evidence brought fol ward. to the police action in the case he said it was a. dangerous thing if the police were to be allowed to intimidate a man hv makin- him serve them under fear of prAcution. Ho asked the jfiry to exSrUin some way its altitude as to the '“Mr Macassey here objected, and His Honour “aid: “You have no right Mi. Honour -am d(> anyt hmg X^ive°ite k vidU ’l ateolutely disapprove of suchin. reques; ; -"t “X „v — “ .. r. mi. i ks •ire dis£>n.b* ; fifd .'with < x. he S’ "“ l ” IS »' the accused was discharged.