BETTING CHARGE FAILS.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 February 1921, Page 5

BETTING CHARGE FAILS.

AUCKLAND AGENT IN COURT. JUDGE COMMENTS ON WEAK CASE. JURY’S ‘-NOT GUILTY” VERDICT. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Auckland, Last Night. A charge of having carried on the business or occupation of bookmaking on January 22 was made against John Weston (Mr. Hogberi), who was tried before Mr. Justice Stringer and a jury at the Supreme Court to-day. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr. Meredith) conducted the prosecution. The selection of the jury occupied six minutes, three of the panel being challenged by Mr. Hogben, and eleven being stood aside by the Crown Prosecutor. Mr. Meredith briefly outlined the case for the Crown. Detective-Sergeant Hammond said he had known accused for seven or eight years, and had never known him to follow any other occupation than that of bookmaking. In company with Detective Fitzgibbon, witness went with a warrant to room 12 in His Majesty’s Arcade at noon on January 22. It was impossible for anyone in the room to see them coming. Witness knocked at the door, and, receiving no reply, he obtained a ladder and looked over the fanlight. Weston was in his office. Witness called upon accused to open the door, which he did. In the office behind the clubroom was a desk, on which was an open face watch, an important item to a bookmaker betting on the starting price. A large collection of writing and printed matter relating to racing and bookmaking was found in the room, and there was also found a quantity of printed leaflets, dated Auckland, October 30, 1920. They read as follows:

"Dear Sir, —-Not wishing to break the law, I beg to state that I am following the occupation Of an electrician at iny usual address, where all work will be faithfully carried out as in the past. Thanking you for past favors, and hoping for a continuance of same in the new department. —Yours respectfully, John Weston.” During the half-hour the detectives were there, an urgent telegram arrived from Trentham giving the result of a race. A number of men came Sn, but some of them, on fleeing the detectives, went away hurriedly. Two of them came in to put money on horse# running that day at Wellington, and witness made a bet with them. The detective asked to see accused’s telephone, but it was not until two days later that accused showed him an upper room with an automatic telephone under the name of Sydney Arnold, commission agent. There was nothing in the offices to indicate an electrical engineering business. Several men found on the premises gave evidence. The statement of a seaman was read to the effect that he had made a bet with accused before Christmas, and had visited him on January 22 to have a bet. Counsel for the defence, addressing the jury, emphasised the fact that the Act. which came into force in August, laid down that a bookmaker was one who habitually held himself out to bet. This was the first trial in Auckland. It was not laid down just what evidence was required, and counsel submitted that there were four essential features to a bookmaking business. Firstly, a bookmaker must habitually make bets, and there was no evidence to prove that at any time since the passing of the Act anyone had made bets with accused. Secondly, he must keep a book recording bets, and there was no evidence in his rooms or on his person to show that he had any record of any bets, made since August. Thirdly, he must offer to make bets, and there was a total absence of evidence that accused had at any time, let alone since August, offered to make bets. Lastly, he must issue circulars or double charts stating with whom or where he bets, and the odds, and there was no suggestion that /these were issued, and the mere fact of them being on the premises did not infer that they were available to the public. The watch was broken, and had not gone for years. Summing up, his Honor said that, however the jury might differ in their* opinions of the law, the Act made bookmaking unlawful. He was bound to say that the evidence to establish that accused had carried on an unlawful business since August was singularly weak. It depended on the result of a search that disclosed various articles which were inferred to be the paraphernalia of bookmaking. Counsel for the defence had put his points well and temperately, and with a good deal of force; and his observations were worthy of careful consideration. The Evidence was far too flimsy to justify the conclusion that Weston was systematically carrying on the business of a bookmaker, for if such was the ease there should be no difficulty in proving it. After a retirement of half an hour the jury found Weston not guilty, and he was discharged.