INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 2435, 30 May 1922, Page 3

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

GAMING HOUSE CHARGES (DISMISSED. TURNING POINT OF CASE. Reserved judgement was delivered by Mr J. L. Stout, S. M. at Palmerston North Yesterday, in the alleged gaming house charges preferred against Robert William Davidson in the Magistrate’s Cohrt last week. Reviewing the evidence, the Magistrate said that there were two informations laid against the defendant, one for keeping a gaming house, under section 3 of the Gaming Act, 1908, and another foit keeping a betting house under section 36. The information for keeping a betting house disclosed no offence, but sub-section 3 of section 36 provided that, a betting a gaming house. vAs to the charge of keeping a gating house, this depended whether the premises occupied by Davidson were being used with the purpose of betting. }ln the present charge the whole ease rested merely on whether or not the evidence by the police as to the various messages received by them over the telephone were admissible or not. Traversing tbis, the Magistrate commented that the- mere statements of third parlies over the telephone, asking for Davidson and asking to make bets were not admissible against Davidson. It was not evidence of actual betting by the defendant or of betting on the premises, and in His Worship’s judgment such evidence must be produced before a conviction could be sustained.

Continuing, His Worship said that the other evidence touching the finding of race cards with the dividends marked, and racing books showed nothing further than that the defendant kept himself posted with in formation as to the races and dividends, which probably was done by people other * than bookmakers. While it was evidence that the defendant had available means for carrying on the business of a bookmaker, it was equally as consistent with, the defendent being a person who made a practice of betting with a bookmaker, as that he carried on the business of a bookmaker. Summing up, the Magistrate said that the evidence was insufficient to show that a breach of section 36 of the Gaming Act had been committed. Both informations were accordingly dismissed.