BOOK-MAKING CHARGE

Hokitika Guardian, 18 February 1921, Page 1

BOOK-MAKING CHARGE

TELEGRAMS.

AUCKLAND PROSfeCUTiON FAILS. AUCKLAND, February 16. A charge of having carried on the business or Occupation of bookmaking on January 22 was made against John Weston (Mt- Hogbcn) who was tried before Mr Justice St finger aiid a jury or. the Supborne Court. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr Meredith, conducted the prosecution. The selection of jury occupied six minutes, three of the panel being challenged by Mr Hoghcn and eleven being stood aside by the Crown Prosecutor. Mr Meredith briefly outlined the cast for the Crown. Detective-Sefgeant Hammond said lie had knowii accused for seven or eight yeai'S and had never known him to follow . ny other occupation than that c a bookmaker. Tn company with Detective Fitzgibbou witness went witli a warrant to Room 12'in His Majesty’s Arcade at noon bn January 22nd. ! was possible for anyone in the room !< see them coming. Witness knocked at ihe door and obtaining no reply he o! taitied a ladder and looked over the fanlight. Weston was in his office and the light went out. Witness called upon accused to open the door, which h" did. In an office behind the cluhroom was a desk, on which was an open face watch ,an important item to a bookmaker betting on starting price. A large collection of writing and printed matter relating to racing and bookmaking was found in - the room. 'llierc was also found a quantity of printed leaflets, dated Auckland, October 30, 1920. They read as follows: ‘‘Dear Sir —Not wishing to break the law I beg to state that T am following tlie occupation of an electrician at my usual address, where all work will he faithfully carried out as in the past. Thanking you for past favours, and hoping for a continuance of the same in the new department. Yours respectfully. Joint Weston." During the half hour tlu detectives were there an urgent tdogrnni arrived from Trentham giving tlie result of a race. A number of ihei came in but some of them, on seeiiig the detectives, went away hurriedly. Two of tin'll) came in to put money on horses funning that day at Wellington and witness made a bet with them. A detective asked to see accused’s telephone, but it was not until two days later that accused showed him an upper room with an automatic telephone, under the name of ‘'Sydney Arnold, commission agent.” There was nothing in the offices to indicate an electrical engineering business. Several men found on the premises, gave evidence. The statement of a seaman was read to the effect that He had made a bet with accused before Christmas and had visited him on January 22nd. to have a bet.

Counsel for the defence, addressing the jury, emphasised the fact that Hip Vet, which came into force, in August, hid down that a bookmaker was one vho habitually held himself out to bet. As this was the lirst trial in Auckland it was nof laid down just what evidence was required, qnd counsel submitted that there were four essential features to the bookmaking business. Firstly the bookmaker must habitually make bets, and there was no evidence to prove that at any time since the passing of tlie Act anyone had made bets with accused. Secondly, lie must keep a book recording debts, and there was no evidence in the rooms or on bis person to show that lie had any record of any bets made since August, Thirdly, he must offer to make bets, and there was total absence of evidence that accused had at any time, let alone since August, offered to make bets. Lastly iie must issue circulars or double charts, stating with whom or where be bets anil the odds. There was no suggestion that these were issued, aiid the mere fact of tlieiii bbing on tlib premises did hiit infof that they ueie available to the public*. The watch w;ls broken and had not gone for years.

Summing up his Honor said that however the jury might, differ in their Opinions of the law the Act made, bookmaking unlawful. He was bound to say that the evidence to establish that accused had carried on iinlawlul business since August was singularly weak h depended on the result of a search that disclosed various articles which Were inferred to he parajihCvnnlia o hookmaking. Counsel for defeiiee had put his point well, temperately ntid with a good deal of force, and his ob serrations were worthy of careful eon suloration. The evidence was far too ilimsy to justify the conclusion tint Weston was systematically e.m.ung on the business of a bookmaker »«r ' such was the case there should be no difficulty in proving it. After a retirement of hall an hotti the- jury found Weston not guilty and he was discharged.