BREACHES OF GAMING ACT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 927, 6 December 1910, Page 3

BREACHES OF GAMING ACT.

POLICE v. WELLER. CONVICTED ON ALL CHARGES. AND FINED AND COSTS. At the Magistrate’s Court, Palmerston North, yesterday, before Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M., John Cyril Weller was charged on the information of the police with eight breaches of the Gaming Act. The charges were : Two charges of betting with an infant on the Otaki Races on October 12th, betting with an infant on the Riccarton races on November rsc, two charges of laying tote odds in connection with the Otaki races on October 12th, betting with an Infant on the Carterton races on November 9th, and two cases of tote odds betting in connection with the same meeting. The two charges of laying totalisator odds, with Robert Coley and George Walls, in connection with the Wairarapa County Cup, run at the Cartertou-Taratahi Racing Club’s meeting ou November 9th, were taken first. Sub-In-spector O'Donovan conducted the case 011 behalf of the police, and Mr H. R. Cooper appeared for defendant and pleaded not guilty. For the prosecution the Sub-In-spector called Robert James Coley, labourer, of Foxton, who stated that on November 9th, in conr pauy with George Walls, he visited detendaut’s billiard saloon for the purpose ol making a bet on the result of a race at the Taratahi meeting. They went into the saloon between three and four o’clock in the afternoon and witness asked Weller to show him the acceptances for the Taratahi Cup, which he did, and witness gave him two sovereigns on Rauparaha. Walls put £1 on the same horse. Weller told them that he would pay totalisator odds with a £1 10s limit for first and £2 los for second. Witness had previously had betting transactions with Weller ou the same terms. Defendant did not give him any receipt or ticket, nor witness did not see him enter the bet in any book. Witness and Walls remained on the premises about ten minutes. They returned to the room after tea, but nothing further was said about the bet. The following night witness asked Weller to settle as Rauparaha had won, be he said he had not heard the dividend. On the Saturday night he told witness he would not pay out at all as he (witness’! had got a point on him and knew the winner of the race before he backed. Weller said witness had received a wire, but witness denied it, as he had not received any. Defendant did not offer to return the money invested. To Mr Cooper: Witness said he knew it was between three and four o’clock when he entered the saloon. It was certainly earlier than 3.45, but he would not swear it was before half-past three. Weller distinctly told them he was laying tote odds with £7 10s and £2 10s limits. Had had previous bets with Weller, and had always been paid. Before making the bets Walls had received a telegram from a jockey named Roy Lambess. Witness knew the contents of the wire which read, “Cup R 7 x 10.” Witness said he did not know the telegram referred to Rauparaha. Under further crossexamination, witness admitted he understood from the wire that the name of the winner of the Cup started with an R and the weight carried was yst rolb. He backed the horse alter he got the information. He did not know now that the wire had been sent after the race had been run. He denied absolutely that he had gone to a boy named Betty, a telegraph messenger, and asked him for a received telegram form stamped with the office date stamp or November 9th. As far as he knew no one had asked Betty for such a form. Weller asked to be shown the telegram received, but when offered refused to look at it. Witness said he did not know that Eambess had gone to Weller and stated that he was sorry he was mixed up in the affair. There was no arrangement between himself and Eambess in reference to the wire. He did not know if there was any arrangement between Walls and Eambess. He had given Lambess money to put on Clemora in the same race, and had lost it. He knew the wire referred to Rauparaha, but did not know that it had been sent after the race had been run. He had never mentioned the matter to Lambess since. He had told Lambess that people said he (witness) was working a swindle. He said he was perfectly innocent of any attempt to work a swindle. To the Magistrate: When he saw the wire he took it to be a tip to back Ruaparaha.

Under further cross examination by Mr Cooper witness denied waiting at the Post Office for the telegram. He did not know if Walls did so. He had never received a betting telegram.

George Frederick Walls, baker, Foxton corroborated substantially the evidence of the previous witness. He said the time they entered the saloon was 3.40 p.m. He said that when the bets were made with Weller no odds were mentioned, but they had had bets with him before and understood the odds were totalisator odds with limits of £l 10s and £2 10s. Defendant entered the bets in his book. Witness said the reason why Dambess sent him the wire was that he had given Dambess £2 to invest m Clemora, and had asked him to send a wire if the horse won. When he received the wire he did

not know what it meant. He took the 7 and 10 to be either the weight or the dividend. He did not know the whole meaning until Lambess came home. When Coley saw the acceptances they concluded the wire referred to Rauparaha, and backed him. Replying to the S.M. Witness said that when he backed the horse he did not know if it had won. He had asked Eambess to send him a winner. The S.M. : The last time you said that you had asked Eambess to wire if Clemora had won. You have now altered it, and I don’t know what you think, but I don’t think it looks like a clean thing at all. To Mr Cooper: Witness said he had arranged with Eambess to send him a wire if Clemora had not won, consequently he knew that the race had been run, but he did not understand the telegram received. He had never received a betting telegram before. Eambess had since explained the meaning of the wire. The whole thing was not a swindle. They asked for the dividend and when Weller said no they let the matter drop. He denied asking Betty to get him a stamped received telegram form. As far as he knew no one else had asked Betty for one.

The Sub-Inspector was about to call Constable Woods when Mr Cooper said he would withdraw his plea of not guilty and substitute that of guilty. His object in pleading not guilty was to put before the court the whole of the facts in connection with the bets, and to show the reason why the money had not beer, paid over. He commented strongly ou the actions of Coley and Walls in connection with the matter, which he refered to as a conspiracy to work a contemptible swindle. Replying to the Magistrate, Counsel said he would also plead guilty to the other charges, but would call evidence iu proof of the contention that when the bets were made with Coley Weller thought he was over 21. Evidence in this connection was given by J. C, Weller, the defendant, and William Hamer, and for the prosecution Robert Coley and Constable Woods also gave evidence. After hearing same the Magistrate said that it did not seem to him that the defendant had taken any precautions at all to find out Coley’s age, and he should have done so.

Mr Cooper then addressed the bench on defendant’s behalf.

In giving judgment, the Magistrate said that these cases should act as a warning to anyone inclined to indulge iu betting as showing the depths which some people will go to iu order to obtain money from others by betting. There was no doubt that Coley and Walls had attempted to swindle another man for money. He had no sympathy for the betting man, but it was most regrettable that young fellows should degrade themselves iu the maimer in which these two had done. He disapproved very strongly of their evidence and conduct. The actions of defendant were illegal, and although there was nothing really dishonest about them, in the eyes of the law they were serious, the betting with an infant being more so than the other. All precautions must be taken to see that bets are not made with infants. In the present case defendant should have known Coley’s age, and he certainly ought to have made enquiries, lu tue two cases of laying totalisator odds iu connection with the Taratahi meeting he would be convicted and fined with costs ns and witnesses’ expenses 17s qd. For betting with an infant, a fine of £lO, with costs 1 is, was inflicted. Iu the remaining cases defendant was convicted aud discharged.

Ou Mr Cooper’s application defendant was allowed one week iu which to find the money.

If iu want of Birthday, Wedding or other gifts, go to Pakkes’, he jeweller, the shop for presents.*