The Tote-Betting Case.

Manawatu Herald, 15 July 1899, Page 2

The Tote-Betting Case.

, 1 A HEAVY FINE IMPOSED. At the Wellington Magistrate's Court yesterday, David Ross was charged with having on the 22nd ultimo, made a bet upon the result of the Hawke's Bay Handicap Hurdles, whereby he agreed to pay to the other party (Francis J. Collins) a sum of money the amount of which depended on the result of the working of the totalisator on that race. Accused, who pleaded not guilty, was defended by Mr T. M. Wilford. Inspector Pender prosecuted. Francis J. Collins (probationary constable) gave evidence as to having contracted a bet with accused for 2s 6d on the horse Social Pest, which v was running in the Hawke's Bay Handicap Hurdles. The horse having won, accused the next day paid witness 8s 6d, the result of the bet. Cross-examined by Mr Wilford : Witness had obtained the money with which he bet from the Police Department for the purpose of " catching the bettors. - Detective Nixon deposed that he saw the previous witness meet accused on the 22nd ult. Collins handed something to Ross, who made an entry in a pocketbook. Detective Broberg gave evidence as to having arrested Ross. There was nothing in his possessioh to indicate that he had been engaged in straightout betting. The defendant denied that he was a. tote bettor, and that he did make a tote bet with Collins. The Magistrate said that on a. former occasion Ross had been fined £15 for tote betting. He could, in the .present case, send the man to gaol, but he was not willing to send him there if he and others would only stop the illegal practices under notice. They must not set the law at defiance. They did not seem to understand that the majority of the members of society said that certain things should be done. The men whom he referred to said they did not care for society and did not care what society said lawful or unlawful. Society then held up its hands and determined to suppress the illegal practices. He did not suppose that the fine of £20, which be wonld inflict, would be a deterrent, as the game was profitable, but if defendant again came before him imprisonment would be the penalty. — Times: v