ALLEGED BOOKMAKING.

Taranaki Daily News, 28 July 1916, Page 3

ALLEGED BOOKMAKING.

IN A PUBLIC PLACE. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. A. Crooke, S.M., W. Drinkwater, for wliom Mr. ]). Hutelien appeared, was charged, on the information of Sub-Inspector Fouhy, with being a bookmaker, and that lie did on June 3 bet in a public place -with one W. A. Seott. He pleaded not guilty. Sub-Inspector Fouhy briefly outlined the ease. William Alexander Seott. a boarding-house-keeper, residing at Fitzroy, gave evidence that defendant came to his house about 8 or 9 o'clock on the morning of June 3, and asked if witness was going to have any bets. The conversation took place in the garden near the back door, in the presence of a man named Hodson, who came with' Drinkwater. They made five or six bets.

To 'his Worship: Witness picked out his horses, and the odds were to lie totalisator odds.

Continuing his evidence, witness said he backed Antwerp, Gold Soult, Mainetotara and Nita each 'for 10s at Otaki and Hushman for . r >s, and Fionulla for £1 at Auckland. The previous day he had backed Gold Soult for £l. He paid Drinkwater £2 los. One or two of the horses were scratched and one won. Later in the day, he gave 10s to Hodson on Te Onga at Auckland, but was not sure whether the bet was made. Defendant at first admitted the bet, but iater seemed to deny it. Witness received a statement from Hodson as to how he stood with Drinkwater, and the latter, when the list was shown to him, said it might he right or it might be wrong. Defendant told Drinkwater that there were several mistakes in it. Some of the horses he had backed were not mentioned, and a horse that he had not backed was mentioned. The list referred to the two days' races at Otaki and the three days at Auckland. Williams, at the Breakwater, gave him £3 on behalf of Drinkwater about three weeks after the meeting. Witness calculated that if the money he had reckoned was put on had been, he should have collected £IS 17s from Drinkwater. In reference to the same meeting he had given Hodson 10s to put on Te Onga, and £1 to put on Captain Mackay. After the races Drinkwater refused to settle, stating that he had no dealings with Hodson. At first he was going to so iiare them all, except a bet on Bisogne, which was cried off. After some discussion over the statement, defendant asked witness to make out his own statement, which 'he did, and sei|, it across to defendant. When approached for a settlement later, defendant said he was busy, but that if witness wanted to have any bets on the races at Hastings he could do so, as there was money coming to him.

In cross-examination, witness said that defendant and Hodson came to meet him as he was coming from milkin" but he could not say from what direction they came. He lived in the same street as Drinkwater, but had not heard any complaint that his cows trespassed, nor was he angry with Drink water because his cows were impounded. Hodson had been boarding with witness :'or the last twelve months, and they could always depend on his money. He had never been as much as two months in arrears, no gave Hodson 10s to put on Belle Paul at Feilding, but had never heard that Hodson had spent it in "booze" at the Criterion. As the ht>r»e did not win, he lTad no need to ask whether Hodson had invested the money. Defendant had previously sent witness money through Hodson. After the luncheon adjournment, Roy Hodson gave corroborative evidence.

In cross-examination he denied that he had been given 10s to put on a horse and had spent it in "booze." He had been turned out of an hotel on one occasion. He had never borrowed £1 off Drinkwater by representing himself as a footballer from Auckland. He had left the Auckland trams of his own free will.

This closed the case for the prose eution.

Mr. Hutchen said that the defence would be a denial.

Defendant, in his evidence, denied that he had hajl any bets with Seott. On June 3rd he had been away at the Plumpton coursing grounds since early in the morning, and did not see either Seott or Hodson. Witness had lent Hodson £l, and some time ago refused to lend him £4. when Hodson, who was half drunk, remarked that he would get even. About June 7 witness was in the Criterion Hotel with Otto Hnse, when Hodson asked him to reckon up seme dividends in connection with some racing, and at Hodson's request he wrote them on the paper that formed the subject of the case. He knew nothing of any alleged interview with Scott and Hodson, with both of whom he was at loggerheads. In the course of a lengthy crossexamination he denied that he had been ordered off the New Plymouth race course.

Wm. Lowe and Fred Nicholls, who were in charge of the billiard-room on Juno 3, gave evidence that defendant was away from the billiard-room on that date. Otto Huse also corroborated defendant's evidence relative to the writing of the statement at Hodson's request in the Criterion Hotel.

The Magistrate said that the evidence was so diametrically opposed that one side or the other must be deliberately committing perjury. The surrounding circumstances were sucli that it was difficult to know -which evidence to believe. He would accordingly dismiss the case without prejudice, so that the police could bring it forward again if thev had further evidence.

Sub-Inspector Fouhy then asked that several alternative charges should be adjourned. Mr Hutchen objected to an adjournment. The Magistrate granted the adjournment, stating that it was a most disgraceful case. There was perjury on one side or the other, and lie would like to sec tlie matter cleared up. The hearing of the other charges was accordingly adjourned until Thursday next.