THE GAMING LAWS.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 August 1920, Page 6

THE GAMING LAWS.

PRINTING OF "DOUBLE CHARTS." PROSECUTION FAILS. Under .the Gauging Act regulations, a charge was preferred against James Mi:- ; Leod, of McLeod and Slade, Ltd., New Plymouth, at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, alleging that lie printed a document containing a notification on be- [ half of one P. J. Flanagan as to the betting of certain horse races, namely, the Borough and Connolly Handicaps, run at Wanganui on 20th May. Mr. Croker appeared for the defence. Constable Muliins, of Hawera, said that on lftth May last he took possession of a quantity of printed matter relating to betting from Flanagan. This included six double charts relating to ithe Wanganui races. The cards were forwarded to the New Plymouth police the following day. To Mr. Croker: They, came into witness' possession when he searched Flanagan at the watch-house at Hawera. Thes next witness was Patrick J. Flanagan./ Mr. Wilson appeared on his behalf, and entered an objection against the witness being asked any questions the answering of which might incriminate him. Replying to examination by Detective Fitzgibbon, Flanagan said' the card produced was a double chart. He admitted having been in possession of quite a number, but there was nothing to show that the card produced was his. Further questioning was proceeding when Mr. Croker also objected ito the witness answering. The Bench said tli'at counsel had no i right to interfere, as he was appearing on behalf of the defendant. Mr. Croker said he thought he was entitled if a witness was asked any question of an incriminating nature to warn the witness. His Worship (Mr. Bailey, S.M.): No the Court will do that. He warned counsel that if he interfered he would have to be dealt with. ■ I Detective Fitzgibbons asked the wit- ' ness who printed his cards, but the latter said he did not think he should answer this question. His Worship: I don't think thai will incriminate you. ■Pressed further, he said McLeod and I Slade had printed for him cards similar I ' to the one produced. • ! | Thomas Fitzgibbons, detective, of New i Plymouth, said the card produced was ; ! sent ito him by the Hawera police. It ! was commonly known as a double card, winch were printed for and carried by j bookmakers. On sth July he showed | the card to Mr. McLeod, the defendant, stating that the imprint was hardly sufficient .to identify the firm, but he ' wanted to know if they printed it. Defendant replied: That is our card. To Mr. Croker: Defendant, James McLeod, was the recognised head of the firm. He did not know anything about .the other partner, or whether the firm was a company. Mr. Croker submitted there was no evidence to associate James McLeod with the printing of the chart. His Worship: I wouldn't go as far as that. It is admitted that it is the firm's card. Counsel said that defendant was not concerned in the printing. It might equally be said that the prosecution could even have charged the bookkeeper or the printer's devil. In any case there was no offence, as the section made the provision that there must be a notification by or on behalf of some person contained on that card. It was not the printing of the card; it was the notification which was illegal. Counsel said defendant had suffered a recent bereavement, and was at present out of the town, so he would not be called. His Worship: Apparently there is no offence in printing these, and showing them all over the street. Mr. Croker quoted authorities in regard to previous prosecutions, in which the same question had arisen. His Worship said the prosepution must fail because .there was no notification contained on the card on behalf of any person. There were all sorts of ways used to get over this, notably by initials and other nom de plumes which were presumably known to the clients. The card must contain a notification on behalf of some person, so that anyone who picked it up in the street would know who was the' distributor. Before the dispersing of the parties in the case, Mr. Croker made an apology to His Worship in connection with the incident during the examination of one of the witnesses. ! His Worship accepted the explanation. He said as far as he could he endeavored to protect witnesses, but he objected to witnesses being told by counsel that they need not answer a certain question. '