BOOKMAKERS FINED

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 137, 7 December 1938, Page 5

BOOKMAKERS FINED

THREE /IT FEILDING

A WOMAN TO PAY £100

(Special to th© "Evening Post.") PALMERSfTONNN t This Day,

Two persons were yesterday fined the maximum amount of £100 and another £30 at F leilding on charges of bookmaking. -ft. woman was stated by the police tip oe one of the two biggest bookmakers in the town. A second defendant had taken over the business of anoiher bookmaker who had left the towm and since then had increased the business.

The first case was that of Annie Alice Clark, rparried woman, who through her coiftisel, Mr. J. Graham, pleaded guilty. . Counsel said that she was different frcim the ordinary bookmaker who was jflealt with by a heavy fine which was .iboked upon as a sort of licence fee. ; : Mrs. Clark was a little unfortunate in that she found herself in a betting atmosphere and counsel suggested that she was entitled to consider* ition on that account. In 1936 she was lined £10 for betting, and her husband I, who was then in Feilding, was firod £100. After that her husband lef^. Feilding and Mrs. Clark remained jand admitted that she carried on in small way. On the day of the Feilding races in November she accepted b^ts amounting to just over £9. She how realised her position and had iiesolved that the practice would haiife to cease. She had assured counseft of this intention and he asked the 'Court to accept that assurance. Mrs.; Clark was a woman of the highest repute. Tisrner said that the defendant was lojpked upon by the police as one of the two biggest bookmakers in Feilding. When her place of business was raided by the detectives she was in the acjp of taking bets and on the table was;a scribbling pad with a record of the* betting which totalled just over #39. It seemed that the reason for ttjie small betting was the fact of the traces being in Feilding itself. • The defendant was fined £100 and costs 10s. Albert E flward f _ Hosken pleaded guilty through his counsel, Mr. D. C. Cullinane, t'*> a charge of street betting. Counsel said that his client was only a bettor in a very small way cfcf business. He was before the Court two years ago and fined £50. He hjfld then intended to give up the practice, but peopje continued to come to bim and he accepted the bets. . Sergeant Uurner said that the defendant had taken over the business of another Siookmaker who had left the town and since that happened had increased thj3 business. Hosken had been quite fflank about the matter and had produced his books, which showed that bets totalling £13 were taken on the second cjay of the Feilding races. He had in his possession when searched £19, whi^e there was £192 in the strongroom, [Including £15 in pennies. The worst ifeature of the case was that the defendant ran a billiard saloon where •; the young lads of the town congregated, and parents had complained to the police that some of the boys spent more money there than they should. The parents' idea was that their botys went there to bet. The defendant was fined £100 and costs 10s. A plea of gt lilty was entered by Roy Gordon Hoskjen, through his counsel, Kr. D. C. Cfillinane, to a charge of street-betting. Counsel said that the defendant was a son of the previous defendant. tOn the day of the Feilding races he,1 had a day off from work and was^ washing the running from the Kawa Ifatoa Road, where people asked him to accept bets and he took them for hjitf father. He was not bookmaking ij*n the ordinary way, but had foolishly yielded and accepted the bets. He 4id not regularly act for his father atid it was impossible for him to pay a heavy fine. Sergeant Turner said that the defendant had; been quite frank, and had admitted that on off days he had assisted his jjather. A book found m his possessiqn revealed that he had laid bets anijl doubles. It was true that he was./not in a big way and the Sergeant feli that the example set by his father had led him into trouble. The Magistrate said that the Act fixed the miiiimum fine at £20 and the maximum aj; £100. He had listened to counsel's remarks and felt that the case would ?be met with a fine of £30 and costs IJJs.