BOOKMAKERS IN COURT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 85, 17 April 1913, Page 5

BOOKMAKERS IN COURT.

CARDS AND TOTE BETTING. In the case against Peter Grant, charged with having assisted to publish a betting chart without imprint, Mr Cassidy, counsel for defendant, submitted that there was no case against Grant, and in quoting the Act bearing on the case counsel contended that the Act was framed to deal with a different class of case and of a different nature. In this case, he said, there was no breach of the Gaming Act, and there was no evidence that Grant assisted in the printing of the cards. The letter containing the card was stamped by a machine which the Post Office had leased to Barnett and Grant, and counsel submitted that this-was the only thing that connected Grant with the card; but this fact did not prove that Grant had assisted in printing the cards. Counsel then quoted several decisions on cases similar to the one before the court. At best, lie held, the police produced only a shred of suspicion against Grant. His Worship reserved his decision. A similar charge against W. Whelan was adjourned, pending the decision in the case against Grant. Wrn. John Boon was charged that, being a bookmaker, lie did l»et on the Riccarton racecourse on March 24. Boon pleaded not guilty. After hearing the evidence of the police and the racecourse detectives the case was adjourned in order that one witness (a racecourse detective) could produce his book in support of his statement that Boon was a tote better.