PEDESTRIANISM AND SWINDLING

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4229, 9 October 1874, Page 3

PEDESTRIANISM AND SWINDLING

(From the Launceston correspondent of the Hobart Town Mercury.) A case which came on for hearing on Thursday, September 3, at the Launceston Police Court, before Mr. Henry Dowling, J.P., resulted in some startling disclosures as to the perfection to which the art of deliberate swindling is carried on in connexion with professional foot-racing and other sports ; and the callous effrontery which the would-be participators in the plunder displayed in giving their evidence, seems to indicate that the arrangement of such little conspiracies against the public are not rare or unusual. The extraordinary evidence taken in the case is given below : BIRD V. KEENE. An information by Albert Edward Bird against one Robert Keene, charging the defendant with having, on the 18th August, received the sum of £2O from plaintiff, and with having fraudulently and feloniously converted the said sum to his own use. Mr. R. B. Miller appeared for the plaintiff.; Mr. O. A. W. Rocher, sen., for the defence. Mr. Byron Miller, in opening the case, said this was a prosecution under the 3rd section of the 27th Viet., No. 8, charging defendant with larceny as a bailee in having received money on behalf of others, and having then unlawful],'- converted it to his own use. He said he thought that whatever might bc said on behalf of the defendant, the evidence would leaye but one opinion on the minds of those who heard it, that the conduct 1 of the defendant and one Harris, who had been mixed up with him in the affair, had been most disgraceful. The facts of the case were that Bird was a. well-known pedestrian, and that he had so far gained the confidence of some sporting people that they, were ■■willing to back him to run from Snake Banks to Launceston, a certain distance in a certain time. This circumstance was represented to Mr. Job Harris, a publican, who agreed to bet against Bird , doing the , distance in the time. The match was arranged, Harris laying £25 to £2O that Bird would not run from Snake Banks to Launceston in two hours and. a quarter. The defendant Keene was appointed stakeholder, and the backers of, Bird took the trouble to go to Keene and ask whether, ho had received all the; stakes, when he replied that he had. If Keene had the stakes as he said, ho was guilty of the offence charged in not having handed them over on the race being, fairly won, , and even, if he did not; receive them, he must be held guilty with Harris of having entered into a'conspiracy as common' swindlers. On being applied to for.the stakes, Keene denied over having received the money which Bird received from his backers and alleged he had paid to the stakeholder. If Keene could bo proved to have received the money the defendant was guilty, and the case must be sent on to the Attorney-General If, on the other hand, it was believed that Bird had not paid over his portion of the stakes, he

deserved to be punished for perjury, and the information dismissed. Counsel for the prosecution then called the following witnesses: — ; Albert Edward Bird, professional pedestrian, deposed,—He lately ran a race against time. Mr. Job Harris, a publican in the Wellington Koad, was the backer of time against his running from Snake Banks to the Wellington Inn, Launceston, 'within two hours and a quarter. Harris was to lay £25 to £2O. He was to receive the stakes, £45, if he accomplished the distance in the time. His portion of the stake, £2O, had been deposited. Mr. Harris and -witness agreed to the appointment of the defendant, Robert Keene, as stakeholder, to which the latter consented. The race was first appointed to be run on Monday, the 24th August, but owing to the inclemency of the weather, it .was postponed till the Wednesday following. Deposited his stake of £2O -with the defendant Keene. He made the stake in two deposits of £ls and £5. On Tuesday, the 18th August, articles were written out. He (Bird) signed those articles ; they were left with Keene. Keene was in his bar when witness made his first deposit of £ls. They went through the bar into the back parlor. This was before dinner time. About two hours afterwards paid the other £5 to defendant, in his bar parlor, and then came out and signed the articles on a desk in the bar. The money deposited by witness as a stake was got, £3 from Dean, £5 from James Banks, and the other £7 .was his own, and part of what he had won by running from Perth to Launceston on a previous occasion. 1 Witness ran the race from Snake Banks to Launceston, and wou. Two gentlemen were appointed as judges, and the race was fairly won. There was no dispute. The stakes were to be paid that night, but it was agreed they should be paid over on the following night, at the theatre. This was according to arrangement made with Keene prior to the race. The stakes were not paid over, although witness told the public at the theatre that the stakes had been paid. This was not true, but he did it to satisfy the public, because Keene appointed to meet him the following morning, at a quarter past 10, at Dean’s shop, and ■ pay him the stakes. On the strength of this promise he told the audience at the theatre that the stakes had been paid over, as he,did not think there was anything unfair. Keene did not keep his appointment to meet him at Dean’s corner the following morning, and witness sent a cab up for him. Defendant came down in the cab. Witness asked him why he had not kept his appointment. The first words defendant said were, “ Bird, you’re a clever man I’ve received no money, and I am not going to ‘part.’” .Defendant further said, “Nothing in my house belongs to me. I have nothing in the house but my blankets and child” Keene asked witness to have a drink, but before going into the hotel witness said, “ I have won the race ; my backers promised me the whole of the £25 if I won, but I will lose my money if you will give me back the money of my backers.” Keene said, “ I have received no money from you or your backers, and will not pay.” Witness took a drink with defendant, his reason for drinking with a man who had cheated him being that the cabr man was with them, and he did not want him to know what was up. Witness then saw his backers and Dean. Told them what . bad passed between him and defendant. Witness then laid the information. Before the race was run a proposition was made to him by Harris, in Harris’s house, in the presence of defendant. Harris wanted him to lose the race, Harris offering to give half what Harris won. Consented to lose the race. Harris and Keene then said, “ How can we trust you; what money have you to lay out ?” Witness then gave him £2 10s. At Snake Banks, on tho morning of the race, Harris took £6 to £5 that witness would not win. Witness ran to win. On the Monday previous to the race, when it was first appointed to take place, I heard the defendant in the parlour of Russell's public-house at Perth say he had got tho stakes. The judges of the race, the backers of both sides, and witness were all present when a conversation about postponing the race took place, when Keene said, “Do as you like ;, I am only the stakeholder.” On other occasions defendant had admitted having got the stakes. Witness up to the present time had neither received aiiy portion of his stake of £2O, nor of the £25 laid by Hams, from the defendant, or any other person. Cross - examined by Mr. Rocher.—Harris asked him twice to lose the race before it was postponed, and on the day it was actually run. Consented on both occasions to lose the race. Harris on the day of the race said witness would get more by losing than winning. If witness had lost he would have put his backers in. Harris expected to gain by getting the bets of the public on the racd, as the public thought he would win. By Bird’s losing, Harris would win the bets and the money of his (Bird’s) backers. He agreed “to row in ” with Harris. Mr. Rocher addressed the Court for the de fence, and said that when a serious charge of this nature was brought, the character of tho man bringing the charge ought to be taken into consideration. Bird had admitted having sold races, and also that he had publicly made a lying representation at the theatre as to the stakes in this race. He did not support Keene or Hands,' for he believed they were all rogues together, but felt no felony had been committed by defendant. No stakes were ever laid, and, in fact, the whole thing was a bubble race got up to get Bird a few pounds. He should call Harris, to give his account of how the transaction was entered into, and the Bench would then be able to judge as to the credibility of tho opposite statements of the case. H e called, William Job Harris, publican, in tire Wellington Road, Launceston, who deposed — Knew plaintiff Bird and defendant Keene. An arrangement was made between himself and Bird that the latter was to run from Snake Banks to Launceston. Bird said he wanted to get a match on, and asked -witness if he'would give his word to make a match for him by backing time against him for £25, the race to be from Snake ; Banks to the Duke of Wellington' Inn,' Launceston. Bird said his wife had just been confined, and he - wanted ' money, and if he could get a match up he should be able to get a few pounds by “going round with the hat.” Bird then went for Keene, and the three, Bird, -witness, and Keene, had “a consultation.”-' Keene was , supposed to be) stakeholder,, and witness was supposed to back time, £25 to £2O. Bird said it could not cost witness anything; he would have a carriage and horses ready at ten o’clock on the morning of the, race to take witness out. Bird also said, “Be sure. if anyone asks if there are any stakes down, stick to it there are. Lot nobody know, for there’s a lot of those young fellows down town, that I want to get on to.”. ... .:

Having cautioned the defendant, the Police Magistrate asked Keene if he had anything to say in defence.' The defendant replied in the negative, and Mr. Dowling then said that, having gone carefully through the evidence, he thought the ' ends of justice demanded that the defendant should 'be committed for trial. Ho committed him accordingly for trial at the next sittings of ’ the Supreme .Court at Launceston,'allowing defendant bail, himself in £IOO, and two sureties of £SO each. .

Bail was obtained, and the .defendant released.