BETTING.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 6 August 1924, Page 4

BETTING.

INCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. INFORMATION DISMISSED. ' (BY TELEGRAPH—PRESS ASSOCIATION .\ PALMERSTON N., Aug. 4. Reserved judgment was delivered today by Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., in the case against Harold Charles Homes, 31 years of age, who was charged “that on divers dates between July 7 and July 9, 1924, being the keeper of a public bar, he did use it as .a common gambling house.” Homes was also charged “that on July 8 he. did publicly exhibit a double card on the Winter Hurdles a'nd Steeplechase held at Wellington on July 9 and 12, the said document containing a notification as to betting on the racehorses.” After quoting two decisions in similar cases given by Mr. Justice Salmond, the. Magistrate said that the evidence m the present case was - that a constable was specially instructed to make bets with defendant in the bar. The evidence >va s inconclusive to prove the use of the bar as a basis for betting operations. The constable actually waited until defendant came*on dutv to relieve the proper barman, and on another occasion, not finding defendant m the public bar, sought him out in the private bar and made a bet with him there. In the Magistv&te’s opinion, therefore, the prosecution had not convincingly proved the localisation of a betting business in the bar, and the information should be dismissed. I “I have dealt with the case on the assumption that defendant actually took bets himself,” stated Mr. Stout, “but there is a question which is not free of doubt—whether he was not merely putting money on with a, bookmaker at the request of the constable. The other question I have to determine is whether the handing to a constable on request of double cards is publicly exhibiting a document containing a notification as to betting on a race. A document is deemed publicly exhibited when openly exhibited within the view of persons in the hotel. There is no doubt that a card was exhibited, but that was at the request of two persons, who were the only ones in the bar. The exhibiting was more in the nature of a private exhibition on request. If a conviction, were recorded, then any person who happened to be in possession of a bookmaker’s double card, and who showed it to a couple of friends at their request, in a public street could lie convicted iinder the section, although no other person saw the card. I. think, therefore, that this information should also be dismissed.”