BOOKIES AND BETS.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 August 1916, Page 3

BOOKIES AND BETS.

THE DRINKWATER CHARGES. WHOSE TIMEPIECE WAS AWRY? DEFENDANT CONVICTED AND FINED. On Thursday week, .July 27, William Drink-water was arraigned before the local .Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr. A. Crooke, oh a charge of betting, in a public place, with one, W. A. Scott, of Kitzroy. The evidence for and against was "so diametrically opposed,'' said his Worship then, that the case was dismissed without prejudice, and other informations against Drinkwater were adjourned for a week. When Drinkwater's name was called in the Court yesterday morning, HubInspector Foully, for the prosecution, rnnouKced that certain facts had come to his knowledge, with the result that a fresh information had been laid, and lie suggested that both counts should taken together. Mr. D.. Hutehen, for defendant, objected to this procedure, claiming that the adjourned information should be the one to be heard. His Worship upheld this contention, and Drinkwater was then charged with making bets with one, W. A. Seott, on June 3rd, on the Otaki races.

By consent, the charge was reduced to a bet made on a horse called Nita, in the Tailioa. Hack and Hunters' Steeplechase. At Mr. Hutehen's request, all witnesses were ordered out of court.

W. A. Scott, boarding-house-keeper, l'itzroy, gave evidence on lines similar to those he adduced at the previous hearing. Defendant was br lit to him by Hodson. Witness had , -t left off milking. A suggestion was made: ''Are you going to have any bets?'' and Drinkwater produced a race card. Witness took six bets, including one of 10s on Nita, at Otaki. Did not remember the name of the race, but thought it was a steeplechase. If he won, lie considered he would get "tote" odds. Hodson was present at the time. Witness paid Drinkwater £3, and received "is change.

Cross-examined: The interview took place between S and !) o'clock, and lasted about 15 minutes, "perhaps longer, or not so long." Could not swear who spoke first, but was satisfied Drinkwater did. and witness did not know what Hudson said.

Sir. Hutehcn here pointed out that at Ihe previous hearing, liodson affirmed that Scott spoke first, saving he wanted a bet.

| Witness: I am here to speak the truth, and not a pack of lies. I'm going to speak the truth and you can't catch m p. Continuing, witness said he could not remember Drinkwater complaining of his (.Scott's) cows trespassing, and a statement like that was a complete lie. (An admonition from the Bench followed this declaration). Had not seen defendant on his (witness's) property before June 3d. Did not think it strange for defendant to come to him. Had betted with defendant before, and had received money from him. Defendant had no dogs with him on the occasion under notice.

By the Sub-Inspector: Defendant lived about two chains away from witness. Had received money two or three times, before June 3, from Drinkwater.

The S.M.: Isn't it rather strange that an alleged bookmaker should go round ind look up his clients'; Witness: Well, Hodson told me on the previous evening that Drinkwater was coming round to see me. It was the first time I have been so approached. Roy Hodson, who said he boarded at Scott's, deposed that 011 June 3 he saw Drinkwater at the front door, about, 8 a.m. Walked with him from the dcOi to the coalshed where they met Scott, who was coming from milking. Scott spoke first, and defendant produced a race-card. Six bet s were made, including one of 10s on Xita, at Otaki. .Saw Scott pay Drinkwater. About 12.30 the same day he saw defendant about half-way between Scott's and defendant's gates, when he made another bet 011 Te Onga, at Auckland. By Mr. Hutehen: Had seen Drinkwater at Scott's place on previous occasions, but could not swear that Seott was present. The interview on 3rd June lasted 10 or 15 minutes. Witness did not say at last week's hearing tiiat Scott asked Drinkwater if he was going to have any bets.

By the S.M.: He did tell defendant that Scott wanted to have a bet.

By Mr. Hutehen: Drinkwater did not have any dogs with him. Was not in defendant's billiard-room on June 3, before 7 p.m. Admitted having been ordered out of an hotel in New Plymouth.

The Sub-Inspector: j How did yon know that Drinkwater was at the door that morning? Witness said lie fancied that the waitress told him that defendant was there. He was in the scullery or kitchen wiien called. With the exception of the brief period at mid-dav. did not leave Scott's house until 7 p.m. Bessie Scott, wife of \V. A. Scott, naively confessed that she remembered June 3. because it happened to be the King's birthday, and also her own. She saw Drinkwater going out of the jig gate t]iat day. Did not see him inside the yard. Knew defendant well by sight; it was about breakfast time when she saw him.

Doris Terrill, of Waitara, said she was at Scott's 011 June 8, which date she remembered' as she gave Mrs. Scott a birthday present From the kitchen window, about breakfast time, she saw defendant going out of the yard. Did not see anyone speaking to him. By Mr. Hutehen: Had not seen Drinkwater at Scott's before, it was about 8 a.m., or a little after, when she sawdefendant Could not recollect anything about cows trespassing and being impounded. There was 110 otjier servant in the house, and witness did not answer the door at all on June 3.

Constable Satherlcy. Otaki, gave formal evidence. Mr. Hutchen said that tlie defence would be an absolute contradiction of statements. There was an important discrepancy in the evidence of two witnesses for the prosecution. 'Scott said he was asked by defendant to bet; Hodson said that Scott spoke first. It was extraordinary that defendant should go, uninvited, to a place to bet, and introduce transactions in sueli an extraordinarily bald tvav. The case was the result of a conspiracy between the Crown witnesses to ruin the defendant. He wouM call witnesses of unimpeachable character to prove that the defendant was in his billiard-room at the time he was said to be making the betting transactions.

Arnold George, cycle dealeiv remembered June 3, because of a discussion he liad with defendant on the tram from Fitzroy. This tram arrive' l in ----- iouth about 8 o'clock, Did

not see defendant again that day. Went into his room once, but defendant was absent. Thought that Ilodson was in (he room when he went up. (!. T. Ramptuu, saddler, Brougham ■Street, in the employ of Mr. I'erry deposed that lie, saw defendant oil .Saturday, .June >:j, just two or three minutes after S a.m., when lie came to get the key of his room to ;<et (lusters, etc. ' About ))>■ iiihvater threw witness the keys and said, 'Tin oil for the day," meaning that he would not be in the room that day. Wm. Lowe, butcher, said he was assisting in Drinkwater's billiard room. He arrived about 5.30 or I) a.m., 011 .June " and found Drinkwater clearing out the room. Everything was practical I y ready; it had been a good hour's work. Defendant was there about 15 minutes after witness arrived. Was not present when defendant returned. Saw Hodsoil in the billiard-room between 10.30 and 11 a.m.

To police: Hodson said: ''Do you know where I can get a bet " Witnes.s replied, No. Knew Hodson by sight, and had perhaps spoken to liin'i. Defendant left to go to the coursing grounds, and witness did not see him again that day. Fred Nieolls ( aave similar evidence, and to the police stated that lie had never had a bet, or been asked to mai-e a bet, with defendant.

Defendant, 011 oath, said that 011 June I 3 he had breakfast early as he had to be at the coursing by daylight. Went out, and did all that was necessary, and then walked to the tram terminus? catching the train. Recollected meeting Mr. George 011 the tram. Arrived in town about 8. got his keys from the saddler's room, and then cleaned up the billiard-room! Left the room' "somewhere" after !), and went straight to Plunipton, taking the tram to Fit/rov. Stayed there till about 4.45. Took lunch, with him. Was not at Fitzroy or New Plymouth between 9.30 and 5 p.m. The statements of Scott and Hodson were absolutely untrue; lie never saw them that day! Was 011 Scott's property 011 one occasion, before June to get some hay. Knocked at the front door and a girl answered. Had 1 sack on his arm and Hodson filled it with hay. This was the only time he had been on Scott's property. There was friction between Scott and him, owing to Scott keeping cows on his (defendant's) property, and destroying flower-beds. etc. Witness had twice let thcin out. and he believed thev had been impounded. Scott "threw ofT" at witness about it. W ; as not a friend of Hodson, who had borrowed money oIT him, saying lie was a representative footballer from Auckland.

Bv thf> Inspector: Was not a bookmaker. and had not made any hots in Now Plymouth, but bad betted on Ultra ceconrse. Did not make any bet witli Hodson. Never bad money from Seott. or given Hodson money for Scott. I!emembered the summer meeting when a man asked him to go off the racecourse, but no reason was given. Went to the secretary, and Mr. Webster said ti. the official, "Let him stop on." Offered to gn-e GlO to the hospital if am betting cards were found on him." Inspector Fouhv said that he would call rebutting evidence, but the S M. refused to accept this, remarking that it was not needed.

The S.M. briefly reviewed the evidence. remarking that the discrepancy in the evidence of Seott and Hudson as to who spoke first was immaterial. He could not {ret beyond the evidence ot the women witnesses, who had swoiii that they saw defendant going ofi" the premises. The case was nfio for a conviction, and defendant would be lined £2O, with Court and witnesses' costs, .C 3 5s 2d.

His Worship granted the application of the Sub-Inspector to withdraw the other charges.