CHARGE OF "WELSHING"

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 299, 12 August 1932, Page 6

CHARGE OF "WELSHING"

M. J.

HEFFEREN.

(To the Editor). Sir, — After reading in your paper this morning the account of the proceedings against me re bookmaking, etc. I feel that your write up calls for some comment, if for no other reason than in justice to myself. After all, although I have thought deeply before going into print, one has a right to protect a reputation one sees fit to value. Why only the evidenee against me for alleged "welshing" was published, and no evidenee in rebuttal of same, I cannot understand. You state that substantial penalties were infiicted, but I regard the publication of part of the evidenee only, in this case, as an infinitely more substantial penalty than any courfc could inflict. The points of which I complain chiefly are: — Constable Chaytor is 1 stated to have said that no reputable I | bookmaker would allow the name of i v, "scratehed" horse to appear on his double chart, thereby leaving the inference that I was not a reputable bookmaker. The infererice, admittedly, is not the fault of your paper, but i taken in conjunction with the evidenee of Morrison and minus the i J evidenee in my favour, the reason for i , my complaint is obvious. Is it not ' j fair to me to point out that Con- j j stable Chaytor in further evidenee ! stated that he had done very little ; betting pieviously and that he knew j i praetically nothing about racehorses ; or race fixtures and thereby taking i some of the value from his ability to • definitely assert that no reputable . bookmaker," etc. You repo: t: — "The Magistrate said j he would draw his own conclusion : : from Hefferen's evidenee. The evi- ; dence of Morrison showed that defenI dant had been in business for some time, e»e., etc." This, of course, shows ! that the Magistrate took notice of | Morrison's evidenee which was mainly ! relative to the charge of "welshing." | This fact combined with the sub- ; stantial penalty and no rebuttal by : me, certainly reads as if I were prov- ! ed a "welsher." ! 'I am not credited with any answer at a'l to this unproven charge of "welshing." Yet reading your nc- • count of the whole affair leaves the | impression that I am guiity of Morrison's charge of having "beatcn him for his divvie." j I submit that if evidenee given i against me is puhlished, so should evidenee in my favcur be published, es- ! pecially in this case when a man's charaeter is in question. Contrary to the impression gained ' from ieading your repoi't, I contend most strongly that on the whole of the evidenee, the suggestion of | "welshing" was a very feeble effort 1 on the part of those seeking to estabi lish a point against me. The remaind- | er of the evidenee which I contend ! that I have a right to have published, ; is the f oi! owing: — (1) The senior- | sergeant stated in eross-examination that, apart from Morrison's complaint . he had heard nothing against me; , (2) Constable Roberts stated that he ! had known me for some considerable : t'mo and he did not judge me to be one who would "welsh" any one; (3) ! on it being put to Morrison that he ! and another were instrumental in ' having an alleged bookmaker charged with assault and also laid information against the same man over an a.lmost identical dispute his answer was after considerable deliberation. "I refuse to answer that"; (4) on it being put to Morrison that he had 'had similar disputes with nearly everyone with whom he had dealt with in betting, that it was his cus'tom to take doubles from bookmakers, and that when they lost he didn't pay, but that when they won he went along to collect his dividend, his answer was again after deliberation: "I refuse to answer that." Have I not the right to have this published? The last two (3 and 4) are certainly solid material to ponder over and well worthy of eonsideration by those who would be apt to read only what has previously been published and draw their conclusion f. om that alone. My reason for penning this is obvious and I trust that it will be accepted for that same obvious reaC36T) oi" O

Rotorua, ll/8/3_2. (The coyrespondence columns of the "Morning Post" are always open for an expression of opinion, and for this reason, we publish the above letter. At the skme time we make no apologies for the report which, within the limits of condensation, is entirely correct. It should be pointed out that the two final questions put to Mr. Morrison and quoted by Mr. Hefferen, were disallowed by the Magistrate. So far as the other points are coneerned, the Magistrate accepted Mr. Morrison's evidenee, and in view of the fact that this established the charge as proven, the relevant pcints have been brought out. — Ed. "Morning Post").