W. V. WHITTA’S CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 4 May 1921, Page 1

W. V. WHITTA’S CASE

CONVICTION AFFIRMED BY APPEAL COURT.

WELLINGTON, May 2

The Court of Appeal delivered: judgment -tills morning in the case his Majesty the King v. William Vivian Whitta, of Christchurch. The case stated for the opinion of the Court of Appeal was whether the evidence of facts which tended to prove that Whitta carried on the business of a bootmaker prior to the date of the coming into operation of the Gaming Amendment Act, 1920 bad been rightly admitted at Wliitta’s trial for carrying on tho business of a bookmaker.

The judgment of the Court, which was delivered by Mr Justice Salmond stated that the Court was of opinion that evidence of acts by the accused were not admissable to prove that tho accused by reason of his character or habits was likely to have committed the offenoo. Such evidence, however, was relevant if it was relevant in any other manner to the issue of the accused s guilt. The Court held that it might be so relevant in many ways, and detailed cases in support of that theory. The judgment added: “Tho question for determination is whether in the prosecution for the carrying on of business as a bookmaker on or between specified dates, evidence is admissible that accused carried on such business before those dates. In dealing with this question it is immaterial whether the prior dates are before or after the passing of the Act ■which made the business of bookmaker illegal. We are of opinion that the evidence was admissible.” There was, in addition a further ground for its relevance. The case for the prosecution was that a bookmaking business, ostensibly carried on by a son was merely his agent. The prosecution was entitled to prove that agency by reference not merely, to transactions within the period specified within the indictment, but also transactions before the commencement of that period. Evidence of systematic betting by way of business prior to September 14th was relevant, as throwing light on the nature of bets made during the specified period, and as showing they were not casual. That accused made bets by way of his business before September Ist, 1920, was no evidence that he made bets after that day. but it was evidence that bets proved to have been made by him after that day were made by him in tho way of his business. Tt had been contended on behalf of tho accused that even if evidence was admissihle that accused carried on business as a bookmaker after that business became illegal, the same principle did not apply to ~evidence of such business before it became illegal. Tt had been contended, that was to say, that the conduct of tho accused in carrying on the business of bookmaker while he was entitled to do so, was no ground for any inference that he continued to do so after hookmaking became a criminal ofFcnce. Even on tho charitable assumption that the business earned on by the accused before the Act of 1920 was carried on in a strictly lawful manner without violation of the very stringent,limitations already placed on business of that class hv the Gaming Act, 1908, and its amendments, the Court could not accept the distinction so suggested. Tt would bo an odd rule if evidence of previous unlawful conduct was admissible, but that evidence of previous lawful conduct was inadmissible. The circumstances that the business became unlawful in August, 1920, might reduce the probative value of evidence as to the carrying on of such business before that date, hut the Court did not think it made such evidence inadmissible. The conviction was affirmed.