“DIRTY" MONEY FROM BETS

Evening Star, Issue 19663, 16 September 1927, Page 11

“DIRTY" MONEY FROM BETS

LAWYER'S ATTACK ON 1 THE TAX,

A solicitor, who deserilied as “dirty” the money the State took from taxes on betting, and a magistrate, who spoke of “logic, not law,” enlivened a betting prosecution at Hath, England. Prank Hill, making house to house calls in Milk street, was observed by two Bath policemen in a covered motor van, and ho was charged with street betting. On him wore found seventyfive betting slips and a sum of money. The defending solicitor saidhlill was a legalised employee of a legalised bookmaker, yet he was not entitled to bet in the street. The sooner this ridiculous state of things was atered the better. A rich man went to his club, used the 'phone or posted a loiter, and there was no offence. “ RICH VERSUS POOR.”

ft is class legislation—rich versus poor. In former days the State took no money from betting. It would not touch dirty money. How betting has been legalised.” Alderman Wills, n magistrate, asked what difference was there between this and brewers’ travellers who called and obtained an order for bottled beer? That was like buying in the street. The deputy town clerk said a brewer was not allowed to sell beer in the street. LOGIC, NOT LAW. Alderman Wills: What is the difference between a bookmaker who has gn office sending out to get orders and a brewer doing the same thing? He was thinking of logic, not law. The 'defending solicitor: Common sense. The depute town clerk pointed out Hill was fined £S in .1922. The bench, fining him £lO, said they were there to administer the law, though they might agree or not with defending solicitor’s remarks regarding it.