A BETTING TELEGRAM WHICH COST £30

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 125, 17 August 1927, Page 1

A BETTING TELEGRAM WHICH COST £3O

CLIENT OF WHITTA WELLINGTON MAN FINED (Special to THE SUN.) CHRISTCHURCH, Tuesday. An echo of the raid by the police on the premises of Alfred Vivian VVhitta, a bookmaker, was heard in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice Adams, when William Kitson, who elected to be tried by jury on a charge of betting with a bookmaker, pleaded not guilty, but was convicted and fined £3O. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. A. T. Donnelly, conducted the prosecution, and Mr. C. S. Thomas appeared for the accused. Twenty-five jurymen were called before the jury was empanelled. The right of challenge of counsel for the defence was exhausted when ten jurymen had been empanelled. The Crown prosecutor instructed seven men called to stand aside. Mr. Donnelly said that when Whitta’s place in Christchurch was raided, telegrams and a letter-card from Kitson were found. Kitson, who is a commission agent in Wellington, made a statement to a detective admitting that he had made bets with Whitta. Two of the telegrams and the letter-card found were his. He some-

times sent telegrams in code, and the code card found in his possession was the one used. He stated that he would plead guilty if charged with betting, but when he was charged he changed his mind. Kitson was charged with making one bet on a double in which he was given 200 to two on Mandane and Licinius. THE CODE TELEGRAM Detective-Sergeant Young gave evidence that when Whitta’s place was raided the following telegram was found: “Alwit Christchurch Roy Mandane Licinius Wellington Kitson.”* The word “Roy” was a code one for £5 Across the telegram was written in pencil “200/2 all available.” Detective Jarrold. of Wellington, gave evidence that he had interviewed Kitson, who admitted that he made bets with Whitta. Kitson made a written statement. This closed the case for the Crown. Addressing the jury, Mr. Thomas said that there was no ..evidence that Kitson had made a bet with Whitta. For a bet to be completed it had to be acknowledged that the bet had been accepted. No such acknowledgment had been shown. It seemed that a clear attempt had been made to bet with Whitta. There was no doubt about that, but it had not been proved that on March 10 Whitta was a bookmaker. On March 31. Whitta was convicted and fined €4OO, “for that he did carry on the business of a bookmaker on March 16.” It had been shown that Whitta was convicted jf hookmaking five to seven years ago. The prosecution was absolutely silent about the period between his former convictions and March 16. ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF DOUBT It was said sometimes that sympathy entered into consideration in such cases. Sympathy should never enter into a Supreme Court trial. A man did nothing wrong legally in bettins- with another man. The offence lay in betting with a bookmaker. If there were any doubt. Kitson was entitled to the benefit of it. In summing up, his Honour said that the jury should use its common sense in considering the evidence before it. The jury retired at noon and returned at 2.15 p.m. with a verdict of guilty of attempting to bet with a bookmaker. Kitson was fined £3O, in default six weeks’ imprisonment.