BOOKMAKER FINED.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 2871, 16 April 1925, Page 3

BOOKMAKER FINED.

A DUNEDIN PROSECUTION. Dunedin, Yesterday. When John Murdock was charged in the Police Court with using his house as a common gaming house, Detective Beer said that when the detectives entered the premises at 1.15 p.m. yesterday, the defendant was in a small sit-ting-room beside a telephone. There were cards there also, showing the acceptances in the races at Auckland , Feilding, Riverton, and Christchurch. In addition to these the detectives found a slip on which was a note of all the betting dene that day, the amounts totalling £76 ss. While the detectives were there (this was for less than an hour), they took bets over the telephone amounting to more than £22. Apart from these there were quite a number of people rang up apparently to make bets, but who when they failed to recognise the voice, became suspicious and refused to state their business. Counsel for the defendant said that. Murdoch was not one of the big men in the game. The amount mentioned (£76) might appear a largo one, but it must be remembered that there were race meetings all over New Zealand on Easter Monday. The racing fraternity in Dunedin were penalised at Easter, there being no meeting to engage their attention within fifty miles of the city, and no facilities for betting except through the bookmakers.

The Magistrate: “Do you put that forward as an excuse?”

Mr Neill: “No, sir, but simply to show that, the amount taken that day was not excessive, and no indication of what the defendant’s regular returns were.” Counsel went on to say that it was a recognised thing for a bookmaker in Dunedin to write more business on Easter Monday than on any other day. It was the small men, he added, that were always brought before the Court in the “cleaning up process.” The big man invariably bore a charmed life.

Detective Beer agreed that defendant did not come out on to the streets to bet. He did all bis business through the telephone. The detective would not agree, however, that the defendant was a “small man.” The figures quoted as returns for one day were by no means small. A fine of £35 was imposed.