WHAT CONSTITUTES A BOOKMAKER?

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 42, 14 February 1912, Page 7

WHAT CONSTITUTES A BOOKMAKER?

* Judgment was delivered at Pal-' j merston on Saturday morning ,by Mr'\j A. 1). Thompson, S.M., in the , case 'j in which Matthew Connoliey was charged that, being a bookmaker, lie did bet on the Foxton racecourse; on January 20th. His Worship remarked that , lie had felt considerable difficulty in’ coming to a proper interpretation of the section;of fire Act governing the case. In giving judgment for defendant he admitted that a considerable amount might bo said on both sides, but defendant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

The evidence for the prosecution, said his Worship, in giving judgment, was that the defendant was watched for about twenty minutes; that during that time he was seen to give money to one person and to receive money from three others; that in a race book in his possession there were in all eight entries, which it was suggested were betting entries, the defendant backing the field at totalisator odds against horses selected by those betting with him; and that another entry in the same book was the working out of the totalisator dividend in such a way as to show that it was for some of the bets already referred to. There was no evidence that before and apart from these circumstances the defendant was a bookmaker, bht 1 it was' said these circumstances shewed he, was a bookmaker. The defendant was called on by the police a't 'once for an explanation of these entries, and said then they were entries of moneys he had paid men for cutting flax for him. He now said that only two of the entries were for that purpose, and that four of the others were moneys paid to him on the course by ■ his men for tobacco, etc. 1 , 1 lie had supplied to them from his store ( that; two of, them were entries of shades in a ticket ho had on the. totalisator, and that the calculation referred to was the working out of the division of that divid'end; His Worship was satisfied that the entries in this book were all betting entries, in which the outsider backed a particular horse, and the defendant backed the field against him. A man who betted in this way was, in his Worship’s opinion, a “bookmaker.” He ■ had already said, however, that there was no evidence to show that previous to this the defendant could be said to be a “bookmaker,” and it seemed to his Worship that the section under which the defendant was charged, contemplated the case of a man betting after he had acted in such a way as to constitute him a bookmaker. The section stated: “Every bookmaker who bets ... on any racecourse. . .

comiUits an offence.” Two things must, therefore, be proved before there could be a conviction: First, there must be evidence that the man is a bookmaker; and, second, there must be evidence that after he had acquired the status of a bookmaker, ho was betting on a racecourse. In bis Worship’s opinion, the prosecution could not rely on the same facts to prove both the status of a bookmaker and the betting. In the present case be considered the betting which bad been proved was required to show, that defendant was a bookmaker. One bet would not be sufficient. There was, therefore, no evidence that after the defendant acquired the status of a bookmaker, bo continued hotting. The case was dismissed. Mr Cooper appeared for defendant.