ALLEGED BOOKMAKER IN COURT

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 205, 25 May 1921, Page 5

ALLEGED BOOKMAKER IN COURT

/ AN AUCKLAND CASE

JURY UNABLE TO AGREE By Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, May 24. In the Supreme Court to-day Cornelius M'Devitt was charged with carrying on the business of a bookmaker at Auckland. Ho pleaded not guilty. There were seven counts against accused. Constable Rimmer gave evidence, particularising bets he said he had made with defendant on February 12, 16, end 17, and in regard to the collection of "a win” of £2 13s. on Gold Kip on February 18. He also alleged betting transactions with M'Devitt. on February 24, 25, and 28. On the last date he made a 10s. bet on Totara Jack, paying with a bank note. Detective-Sergeant Hammond staled that on February 18 ho saw Constable Rimmer accost accnsedi in Queen Street and pass him something. Ten days later he saw several men approach M'Devitt whilst he was sitting in a motor-car In the street. Witness and Detective O’Sullivan approached the car from behind, and four men hurried away from it. M'Devitt was arrested end found in possession of £3B, including 27 ten-shilling notes, one of which bore tho number of a note witness had given Rimmer about half an hour previously. They also found a bookmaker’s settling book, which contained entries in defendant’s handwriting relating to- the Wanganui nnd Thames races, showing that he had laid £454 in wagers. The book also showed backers’ winnings on totalisator odds in bets of up to £2O. Witness found secreted in tho hood of the car about a hundred betting slips and some race cards, printed lists of acceptances and a notebook with details of double betting. No evidence was called for defendant.

Counsel in addressing the jury emphasised that bookmaking was purely a. statutory crime in New Zealand. From time immemorial bookmaking had been legally carried on and there was no moral wrong in bookmaking. Side by side with the law which made bookmaking « crime, provision was mode for the use of the totalisator. His Honour: I cannot allow you to criticise the Legislature, Mr. Conlnn, The. Legislature has passed a law relating to bookmaking. That is all the Court is concerned with. That law has to be administered.

Counsel said he wished to npko it clear that he did not desire the jury to return a sympathy verdict because the legislation might be unpopular. He submitted that overwhelming evidence of guilt should be established in such a case. He submitted that Rimmer’s evidence had not established that he made bets with accused. It was possible that he was practically acting as a totalisator agent, which might be an offence, bnt was not bookmaking. Counsel suggested also that one of the other men in the car might have owned the paraphernalia founds in it.

His Honour, in summing up, said that the function of the Court was io administer the law. There might bo differences as to whether making this sort of thing a statutory offence was wise, but neither the jury nor the Judge was concerned with that aspect of the matter. The law had made it an offence. If the jury did not disregard their oaths they would find a verdict according to the evidence. He entirely disagreed with the suggestion that th/iro was not a moral wrong in bookmaking. It was breaking the law. It might as readily bo said that there wns no moral wrong in selling liquor after hours, but it was made an offence. After a retirement of 4 hours and 20 minutes the jury disagreed. A. new trial was ordered for Monday and bail was allowed.