ALLEGED BOOKMAKING.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 May 1921, Page 5

ALLEGED BOOKMAKING.

AUCKLAND JURY DISAGREES. A NEW TRIAL ORDERED, By Telegraph.—Press Association. Auckland, Last Night. At the Supreme Court to-day,' Cornelius McDevitt was charged with carryon the business of a bookmaker at Auckland, and he pleaded not guilty. There were seven counts against accused. Constable Rimmer gave evidence particularising bets he said he had made with defendant on February 12, 16 and 17, and in regard to the collection of 1 a win ’ of £2 13s on Gold Kip on February 18. He also mentioned alleged betting transactions with McDevitt on February 24, 25 and 28, and on the last date he made a 10s bet on Totara Jack, paying with a bank note. Detective-'Sergeant Hammond stated that on February 18 he saw Constable Rimmer accost accused in Queen Street find pass him something. Ten days later he saw several men approach Mcr Devitt whilst he was sitting in a motor car in the street. Witness and Detective O’Sullivan approached the car from behind and four men hurried away from it. McDevitt was arrested, and found to be in possession of £3B, including 27 ten-shilling notes, one of which bore the number of a note witness had given Rimmer about half an hour previously. Defendant also possessed a bookmaker’s settling book, which contained entries -in defendant’s handwriting relating to the Wanganui and Thames races, showing he had laid £454 in wagers. The book also showed backers’ winnings on totalisator odds in bets of up to £2O. Witness found secreted in the hood of the car about a hundred betting slips and some race cards, a printed list of acceptances and a notebook with details of double betting. I No evidence was called for the defendant.

Counsel, addressing the jury, emphasised that bookmaking was purely a statutory crime in New Zealand, and from time immemorial bookmaking had been legally carried on. There was no moral wrong in bookmaking, and, side by side with the law which made bookmaking a crime, provision was made for the use of the totalisator.

His Honor: “I cannot allow you to criticise the Legislature. The Legislature has passed a law relating to bookmaking, and that is all the Court is concerned with; that law has to be administered.

Counsel said he wished to make it clear that he did 'not desire the jury to return a sympathy verdict because the legislation might be unpopular. He submitted that overwhelming evidence of guilt should be established in such a case. He submitted that Rimmer’s 'evidence did not establish that he made bets with accused. He suggested that it did not establish that he made bets with accused. He suggested that it was possible he was practically acting as a totalisator agent, which might be an offence but was not bookmaking. He suggested also that one of the other men in the car might have owned the paraphernalia therein. >,

His Honor, summing up, said the function of the Court was to administer the law. There might be differences as to whether making this sort of thing a statutory offence was wise, but neither the jury nor the Judge were concerned with that aspect of the matter. The law had made it an offence, and if the jury did not disregard their oaths they would find a verdict according to the evidence. He entirely disagreed with the suggestion that there was not a moral wrong in bookmaking. It was breaking the law r , and it might as readily ’be said there was no moral wrong in selling liquor after hours, but it was made an offence. After a retirement of four hours and 20 minutes the jury disagreed, and a new trial was ordered for Monday. Bail was allowed.