A BOOKIE PROSECUTED

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 85, 30 September 1911, Page 5

A BOOKIE PROSECUTED

A FINE OF £SO. By Telegraph—Press Association. Aflhburton, Last Night. At the Magistrate's Court to-day, before Mr. V. (}. Day, «.M., Wir>. Whitta, book-maker and land and estate agent,, Ohri&tchureh, wa» charged on the information of tihe police with having OQflfc* mitted a breach, of the Samimj'Act by loitering in a puWic place for the ipur. pose of soliciting bets on the racecourse road, opposite the Ashburton racecourse, on September 14 and 15. Whitta ivm represented by Mr. J, A. Cass-idy, «nd pleaded l not guilty. Tho police led evidence to show that defendant loitered a,bout the gates oi the course ou both days. Their witnesses said that they saw a stream of people continually going to and from the gates, presumably for the purpose of speaking to defendant. Witnesses (who included Detective Osborne and Racecourse Detective Kraetzer) did not actually see what took place, as defendant invariably concealed his actions. Sergeant Fouhy deposed that he saw a man namied Murray put his hand in hii pocket, take out something (presumably cash) awl liand it to defendant. Other witnesses told of similar su«pacious actions, and emphasised the fact that defendant concealed his notions, ■which for the most part were moat suspicious. Mr. Cassidy submitted that there was ' no case to answer, and the prosecution must fail. The evidence adduced wfls suggestive only, and the prosecution desired his Worship to draw an inference. His client had come to Ashburton merelj to watch the races. If the prosecution was upheld, it would mean that it would not be safe for a bookmaker, should ha desire, to strictly comply with the provision® of tlifi Act. !

The magistrate ruled that there was a case to answer. Whitta, who was a bookmaker, came to Ashburton, and it could 1 only be assumed thai he came expressly for the purpose of following hid vocation.

Several witnesses were called by the defence to prow that though Whitta was generally observed, there appeared to lie nothing suspicious abojit. his actions.

JYom the witness-box Whitta sail that he -visited Ashburton on Septemben 14 and 15, as be took a great interest in racing generally, and he watched the races from the rond. lie .could say positively that he never a 'bet or accepted a shilling from anypne during ■ the meeting. He contended it was outrageous to think that because a man ' had been a bookmaker lie could nob speak to another person during the progross of a race meeting withojut contracting a betting transaction, f this was the law it would be better o ostracise bookmakers to (he 'North Pole. Ha knew that he was allowed < 11 the racecourse. He was in Ashburt >ll on business distinctly apart from r icing. The magistrate- said tha, he would enter up a conviction ajgaim t defendant for both days. I'm- Hie first day of the meeting Whitta would W cijin icted and discharged, but for 'the second day a fine of £SO and full coats (£3 l()s 8d) would be inflicted. The evidence of tlie prosecution certainly allowed of certain inference to be taken, but u<j sajtis;actory evidence had lir.en given by defendant to show why Whitta had visited Ashburton. The fact that people were repcutedly interviewed oil the road, and thejii went back to the course, allowed at only one, inference, and that was that) Whitta was loitering on Yhe road for the (purpose of soliciting bets. 111 reply to Mr. Cassidy, his Worship said he would fix security f(rf an appeal at £lO 10s.