ALLEGED BOOKMAKING

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 171, 15 April 1921, Page 5

ALLEGED BOOKMAKING

EVIDENCE IN TRIAL DISPUTED

QUESTIONS FOR APPEAL

COURT

Questions of admissibility of evidence •were dealt with by the Court of Appeal yesterday, Hie Honour Mr. Justice Sim presiding. The other judges on the Bench were their Honours Mr. Justice Hosking, Mr. Justice Stringer, and Mr. Justice Salmond. William Vivian Wliitta, convicted of -bookmaking before His Honour Mr. Jusrice Herdman, at Christchurch, appealed on the ground that certain evidence called by the Crown when he was arraigned on four counts under the gaming Act, each count referring to the carrying on of the business of a bookmakerwas not admissible. At the trial, which was held in February last, Mr. Justice Herdman noted the objections, - and stated a case for the opinion of the higher court. The evidence objected to was as follows:—(1) Thail which tended to prove that in carrying on the business or occupation of a bookmaker, the activities of the accused extended to Australia; (i) t'hat which tended to prove that A. V. Whitta, son of the accused, carried on the business or occupation of a bookmaker at promises situated in Cathedral Square, Christchurch, on be half of the accused, who was interested therein; (3) that of all facts which tended to prqvo that’ the accused carried on the business or occupation of a bookmaker prior to August 28, 1920. The charges were in relation to the following ing dates, on which it was alleged, the accused carried on the business of a bookmaker: —September 1, 1920, and November 12 and 26, 1920, and it also was , charged that from September 1, 1920 to November 26, 1920, he carried on such business. In stating the case, His Honour said that ho admitted the evidence in paragraphs 1 and 3, holding that it was relevant to rhe issue, inasmuch as it consisted of facts which went to prove the nature of the business oystem carried on' by the accused, and inasmuch as it helped to prove his status. He admitted the evidence referred, to in paragraph ,2, in proof of the nature of a business or occupation in ' which, from facts proved, the jury was entitled io infer that the accused was interested. "The accused, after conviction, was admitted to bail,” added His Honour. "The question for the Court'of Appeal to decide is: "was the evidence referred to above, properly admitted?”, Mr. M. J. Greeson and Mr. C. S. ' Thomas appeared for the appellant, and ' the Solicitor-General (Mr. W. C. Macgregor, K.C.) with him Mr. A. T. Donnelly, for the Crown. Tn the course of argument, Mr. Greason contended thr.t the whole question was the interposition of legality, which, he thought, made the evidence inadmissible. The Solicitor-General cbn'lended that the evidence was - admissible on two grounds: (1) As proving that the acts 'referred to were done in the course of carrying on nn established business—that of a bookmaker; and (21 to prove the status of the accused. Tn fact, ho was a bookmaker, as he had admitted in a civil action that he was making a considerable' income ns a bookmaker in Australia. That action hnd occurred some months before tho passing of the Gaming Act. After counsel had replied, tho Court reserved its decision.