BOOKMAKING BUSINESS

Hokitika Guardian, 22 April 1931, Page 6

BOOKMAKING BUSINESS

PRINCIPALS EVADE POLICE. WELLINGTON. April 18. "II seems a pity that, merely the small fry are brought before the Court when no successful effort has been made to get the principals,” said Air A. R. Sievwright at the Magistrates Court, when appearing lor Airs Annie M’Arthur, a domestic, aged and Richard Goodcliild, a billiard\ marker, aged 29, who were charged with using a room in Brandon Street as a common gaming house. Respective lines of £SO and £5 were imposed on Mrs M’Arthur and Goodcliild by the Magistrate, who said that the figures given by the police showed that a fairly substantial amount of betting had been going on. The accused were given two days in which to find the money. Sub-Inspector Ward said that for the last eighteen months or two years Air M’Arthur had been keeping a billiards saloon in Brandon Street. Complaints had been received by the police that hutting was going on, and the place was .searched under warrant. Mrs AUArthur said that her husband had been carrying on the betting business for the past twelve months. On March 20 he went to Australia, and in the meantime she had been carrying on tlie business.

. “They are agents for big bookmakers,”, continued flu- sub-inspector. During the past month 386 straight-out bets, ranging from 5s to to, and 136 doubles, were taken. For the Avondale meeting on Wednesday 30 straight out bets and 32 doubles were taken. A large quantity of betting material was found wlieii the police raided the saloon. It was ascertained that Airs .M’Arthur had an account for (‘263 ir: the Rost Office Saving Rank, and a hank hook belonging to her husband showed that between February 25 and April 15 (195 had been lodged. Good-

child had; a small amount in the Post Office Savings Rank. Mr Sievwright said that Goodcliild was merely the marker at the saloon, and derived no benefit from the work lie had done in connection with tfie betting. As far as Mrs .M’Arthur was concerned she was only an agent for a big bookmaker. Working on the usual 10 per cent basis, she would have received only a very small sum as profit from tin- business.

"The man who reaps the cream is the principal book-maker, who apparently is not brought before the Court,” aid Mr Sievwright. “In cases of this kind the Court should l not make a sort of inariyr of an agent when sfie was carrying on business for a big bookmaker. There must he evidences in ibis case as to whom the principals are They should he brought before the Court and suffer a heavy penalty.”