ROUNDING UP THE BOOKIES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 2836, 20 January 1925, Page 3

ROUNDING UP THE BOOKIES.

A NELSON CASE. Nelson, Last Night. George A. Clements was charged that with being the occupier of certain premises in Hardy St., he did use same as a common gaming house. He pleaded guilty. Defendant come to Nelson about three months ago and commjeneed business as a sadtllfr in premises in Hardy St. It soon became evident; that he had established himself as a bookmaker, and the premises were raided by the police on a warrant on the night of December 31 Inst when a lot of incriminating documents were found. Nothing was known against him prior to coming to Nelson from Wellington.

In answer to the Bench, SeniorSergeant Barrett said according to Hie documents seized he should say defendant was only a beginner. ITo did not think he had got very far ahead with the business. There was one document called a double chart which in itself is an offence, offering 25 to 1. There were also a lot of race cards and letters all leading up to the business and showing clearly that lie (defendant) was well established in Ihe line of hookmaking. The Magistrate: “So far as you know he has not been doing business anywhere else 1 ?"

The Sergeant: “No. Bookmakers here are in touch with bookmakers in other places. They don’t be! on local matters but on outside matters, and this outside matter is transacted by code. There is a Bookmakers’ Association established in this country on a very strong footing.” The Magistrate: “It is not incorporated is it ?” The Senior-Sergeant: “It will he by the look of it, if they go much further. They are making application to “get; a place in the sun.” I don’t, know whether he (defendant) it a member, blit steps were being taken to have him included.” Counsel: “He is not; included.” The Senior-Sergeant.: “They have* to pay a £36 fee to become a member and are supplied with codes, etc.” The Magistrate: “He is what is called a tenderfoot.” The Senior-Sergeant: “Yes. The going was good here, and he thought there would be no interference, but lie had not gone far before the law caught him.” Counsel appealed for leniency. Defendant’s business was conducted in a very small way, and there was evidence as to this by his small bank balance. He did not suppose liis client bad a monopoly of Hie business in Nelson, but be bad been the one to he caught. The Magistrate said lie must impose a penalty. No doubt defendant carried on the business of a bookmaker for ‘the profit be made out of it. He would lie convicted and fined £25 in default two months’ imprisonment. Defendant was allowed a week to pay.