BOOKMAKING CHARGE.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 May 1922, Page 6

BOOKMAKING CHARGE.

■Jr- A NEW PLYMOUTH CASE. SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS. ALLEN FOUND NOT GUILTY. A charge of carrying on the business of a bookmaker was preferred against Herbert Thomas Allen, in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth, yesterday, before His Honor Mr. Justice Reed. The interest taken in the case in the town was reflected in the large attendance in the body of the court during the hearing. There were four indictments, alleging that, on January 30, February 1 and February 11, Allen carried on the occupation of a bookmaker. The fourth embodies a joint charge concerning the period between January 30 and February 11. Accused, who pleaded not guilty, was defended by Mr. R. H. Quilliam, and the ease for the Crown was conducted by Mr. C. H. Weston. Some attention was directed to the empanelling of the jury by the fact that seven jurors were ordered to stand by on the Crown Prosecutor’s call, and there were six challenges from counsel for accused, The case occupied all the morning. The following jury was empanelled: Messrs. A. Rowe, H. H. Olson, J. Geddes, R. C. Allsopp, G. M. Kebbell, A. McGiven, N. W. Hill, P. D. McGregor, R. T. McQuade, J. G. Boulton, H. A. Bowen, W. N. Ackland. Mr. Kebbell was chosen foreman. In explaining the case to the jury, the Crown Prosecutor remarked that there had been changes in the law regarding bookmaking in recent years. Under the Act of 1908, it was quite legal to be a bookmaker, though it was an offence to bet in a public place, and bookmakers were not allowed on racecourses. In August, 1920, the law was changed, however. and it then became illegal to be a bookmaker at all—the Legislature decided that it would sweep away bookmakers out of the country. There was nothing to prevent private individuals having a bet now and again, but to make this a means of livelihood or a business was illegal. STRANGE CONSTABLES. In the present case two constables, Edwards and Dore, v sent up from A ellington for the purpose of detecting bookmaking, and on June 30 these two —in plain clothes—were in the Royal Hotel. They saw accused, Allen, drinking with two men, and heard the party talking about the races. One of the two men was seen to hand over some silver to Allen, who thereupon made an entry in his notebook. On the following day the two constables were in the bar of the White Hart Hotel, and the accused was there with two men, again talking races. Money was seen to change hands. After thia, Constable Edwards went up to the accused and said, “How is it for ten shillings on Stork in the Cup?” He was referring to the Egmont Cup at Hawera. He gave Allen" ten shillings in silver, and accused made a note in his book. The constable asked accused what his limit was, and Allen replied that it was £2O on the first horse and £lO on the second. On February 11, Detec-tive-Sergeant Cooney, Senior Sergeant . McCrorie and two constables searched accused’s house in Courtenay Street, and in the accused’s pockets were found all the paraphernalia of bookmaking, which would seem to show conclusively that Allen had been carrying on the business of a bookmaker. Constable P. S. Edwards gave evidence as to the making of the bet with Allen, who made the note in his book: “St., Ed.” Mr. Quilliam: How long have you been in the police force? —-Fifteen months. How old are you?—Twenty-one. You came here especially to detect illegal betting’—Certainly. This case is the sole result of your efforts ?—Yes. How long were you here?-—'Four or five days. It would have been very unsatisfactory, of course, if you had no evidence?—Not at all. Are you still a probationer?—No. I take it your promotion depends on your detecting crimes of this kind?— No. So, if you had spent a week in New Plymouth without result, you would not have been at all dissatisfied?—Not at all. THE R.S.A. BADGE. You are not a returned soldier, are you?—No. You have used the badge of the Returned Soldiers’ Association? —That has nothing to do with this case. Have you -worn, the badge of the R.S.A. ?—Yes. And without any authority whatever to wear it,? —Yes. You know that your action in so doing caused a storm of indignation?—No reply. Is that not so?—I think so. You used it in order to get evidence of sly-grog selling?—That is so. Therefore, in order to get that evidence, you lied by your conduct? —Put it that way if you like. You realise it was a very dishonorable thing to do? — I suppose it was. You hoped that the man would more readily break the law if you were a returned soldier, than if you were not?— No reply. Why did you wear it?—’Cause I was told to. His Honor: It was very likely meant to be in the nature of a disguise. Mr. Quilliam: 1 submit not, with so many young men who are returned soldiers His Honor: It would be a disguise to this extent: the badge would indicate,, perhaps, that he had nothing to do with the police. I don’t say it was a right thing to do. He had no right to do it. Mi’. Quilliam (to witness): The Commissioner disowned your action in wearing it? —1 can’t say. Didn’t you get instructions from them not to do it again?—No. Did you know that the Commissionersaid that steps were taken to prevent a recurrence of this?—-No. You .hadn’t the curiosity to enquire, or were you too ashamed?—l don’t know. Where did that bet take place >n the White Hart? In the bar?—By the ' a °eut»ide..the bar?—Jt .wa«. outside ftS

bar, iq the bar. (Laughter.) Did it take place in the bar-room?— Yes. Did you know any people in the bar at the time? —Only Constable Dore. Did you take the name of the man who pasesd over the silver?—l had no authority to; I didn’t know him. Could you not have found out?—l was not going to put myself away. Did you know any of the men in the Royal on January 30?—No. Did you take any steps to find out who the man was who passed over the money?—No. You were out to get Allen, and that is the whole thing, is it not?—As many as we could get. Why didn’t you get the others?—Well, to tell you the truth, they would not ■‘come at it.”

How many hotels were you in?—Nearly all of them. Drinking in all? —Oh, now and again. Did you ask the accused to have a bet with you on any other occasion?— No. To whom was the race card passed in the White Hart Hotel? —To one of the men. Not to the barman?—No. OTHER POLICE EVIDENCE. Evidence in corroboration was given by Constable T. C. Dore. Answering Mr. Quilliam, he said he was 23 years of age, and had been 12 months in the force. He had passed the probationer stage. Regarding the passing of the race card in the White Hart Hotel, he was of opinion that it was handed to the barman. Evidence as to the execution of the search-warrant was given by DetectiveSergeant Cooney, who detailed his investigations at Allen’s house in company with Senior-Sergeant McCrorie and Constables Palmer and O’Donovan. The gum of £s3' in notes was found in Alien’s trouser-pocket, and there were also three slips of paper in which money was wrapped. The writing on the slips showed that they were betting transactionc. The witness proceeded to read the contents of the slips, which contained such details as: 2s 6d Vespuccio, P.M. Handicap; any funds, 2s Gd The Dunce, Nursery Handicap. 2s 6d The Snatcher; 2s 6d Some Fire, Urenui Handica; 2s 6d Birkwind; 2s Gd Potoa King, etc. On the margin of the paper there were written the names “Booke,” “Bot,” and “Manure,’ which probably referred to the people who made the best. His Honor: Surely “manure” is not the name of a person? • The witness: People don’t usually give their correct names these days. The detective proceeded to give details of other slips. Bets at T 6 Kuiti included 2s Gd Dactylis; 5s Esthonia; 5s Fife and Drum, etc.

The slin was again signed “Manure,” , and the signature seemed to cause much amusement to the spectators in Court. > In one envelope (produced) there were 13 slips. These were endorsed in various fashion, as follows: “G. H.. “A. 1 Hope,” “F. Red,’ “C. Haskell,” “C. ; Street.” “Flo,’ “Joe K.,” “Ivy X,” “Tom.” “Jock,’ “Boots,” -Carter.” His Honor: Are you sufficiently familiar with racing to'.know whether horses bearing these names are racing in New Zealand? ! The witness: Some horses mentioned j were racing that day. There will be evidence as to that. He quoted the Daily News, showing that certain horses raced at Dunedin and Te Kuiti meetings. The detective, continuing his record of the search at Allen’s house, said accused was arrested and subsequently admitted to bail. , , , ~ Answering Mr. Quilliam, the detective said no notebook was found. There was a telephone in the house. They did not find any double charts or printed circulars relating to betting, or any trace of Constable Edwards’ bet. Answering His Honor, the witness said the notes found referred to races which were held that day. They did not find anything relating to past racing. Evidence as to the search was also given by Constable R. J. Palmer. DETECTIVES OBSERVATIONS. Detective T. Fitzgibbon, of Hastings, who was stationed in New Plymouth from 1915 to 1920, said during that period he knew accused, occupation was that of a bookmaker. He knew of no other employment in which Allen was engaged. The Crown Prosecutor was proceeding to ask if the detective ever had any occasion to move Allen on. Mr. Quilliam objected to the question. One would assume, he said, that if there had been evidence that Allen had betted in public places, he would have been prosecuted. His Honor: It doesn’t necessarily follow. In the course of further remarks, His Honor pointed out that the Court of Appeal had held that evidence of the kind was admissible. Mr. Quilliam said he did not think the court had gone quite so far. His Honor (to the detective): How did you get this knowledge?—By observation. nis Honor said he did not know what the question about moving on was meant to refer, to, and probably it did not have any bearing on the matter. This concluded the detective’s evidence, and he was briefly cross-exam-ined by counsel for accused. Constable L. G. Parkinson, stationed in New Plymouth since 1915, said he had known Allen for about six and a-half years,'and to his knowledge accused had never been in any permanent employment. Particulars of horses racing at Te Kuiti on February 11 were given by L. G. Aarton, secretary of the Te Kuiti Jockey Club, the evidence referring especially to horses mentioned in the betting slips produced in connection with the case Evidence on similar lines was given by ,‘C. B. Webster, assistant-secre-tary of the Taranaki Jockey Club. Mr. Weston asked the latter witness if Allen was permitted on the T.J.C. i racecourse. The reply was that racecourse detectives were appointed and the question of excluding people was left to their discretion. Can you say whether you have a list of persons who are refused admission to the racecourse ?—Not to my knowledge. This concluded the case for the Crown. Addressing the jury, the Crown Prosecutor said the suggestion had been made by counsel for the defence that there was no evidence in the accused’s house, beyond the few betting slips, and that they would infer from that, that Allen waa not carrying on a betting business. He thought it would be readily recogBised, however, that a person who knew

he was carrying on an illegal business would take steps to destroy any evidence against himself. Once the bet was done with, the race over and the account settled, all traces would be destroyed. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. No evidence was called for the defence. Addressing the jury, Mr. Quilliam suggested that the remarks just made by the Crown Prosecutor were really an apology for the very weak character of the evidence that had been submitted. It was on this evidence that they were asked to brand Allen as a criminal. In 1920, some very vital alterations to the Gaming Act were made —no doubt, as would be known to the jury, in response to the clamor of a section of the community. He did not wish to criticise that law, but wanted to point out the sweeping nature of the alteration that was made. The mere carrying on of the business of a bookmaker made a man liable for imprisonment for two years. His Honor: It is provided there is an option of a fine. • Continuing, counsel urged that a law wnich took away a man’s business—up to that time a lawful one—was a very serious thing indeed. This being so, the jury were under the necessity of having most convincing evidence of guilt before they designated a man as a criminal. The basis of all the charges was that there had been a systematic carry-

BOOKMAKING CHARGE: THREE ing on of the business of a bookmaker, but what evidence had the Crown brought forward to satisfy the jury that Allen was guilty? The whole case for the Crown, said counsel, rested upon the evidence of the discredited' police constable, Edwards. They had heard what he had to say in cross-examination, and that he had once acted a most dishonorable lie. Here was a man who. in order to trap another man into selling him liquor, puts on a returned soldier’s badge. The reason for that was obvious. A returned soldier was more likely to get a drink on a Sunday afternoon than an ordinary civilian. “These young boys, who have had about twelve or fifteen months’ in the police force,’’ said counsel, “and who are naturally desirous of promotion, are sent up to New Plymouth on special duty. Probably they are naturally proud of the trust imposed of them. They spend some days in New Plymouth. Presumably they also spent some money, as they visited nearly all the hotels. It would be rather unsatisfactory, after spending all that money and time, to say they got nothing.”

Proceeding, Mr. Quilliam urged that the evidence given by Edwards as to the bet was very unsatisfactory. It was unsatisfactory ibecause nobody who was in the hotel had been called to give evidence. Counsel suggested that other evidence could be got. Referring to the question of the slips, he asked if it could be suggested that these were the records of a bookmaker. How could a man remember by whom the bets were made? There was nothing to show conclusive); that these were the records of a bookmaker. There were plenty of innocerii explanations which could be attached to these bits of paper, but they were promptly assumed by the police to be conclusive evidence of the records of a bookmaker’s bets. Counsel was of opinion that the testimony of Constable Edwards could not be relied on. He impressed on the jury, in taking into consideration a law which struck so seriously at the liberty of the subject, and which had made unlawful something which was not in itself immoral or criminal, they should have evidence much stronger than that of Constable Edwards before finding against accused. As to the evidence of Detective Fitzgibbon, counsel characterised this as asking the jury to guess that Allen was a bookmaker. JUDGE SUMS UP. Summing up, His Honor remarked that these offences were dealt with by the magistrate, but accused had elected to be tried by a jury, as he had a right to, and this why the case came before them. Proceeding to review the evidence, he referred "to the testimony that accused did no work and that he was a bookmaker prior to the 1020 Act. The Crown asked them to draw the inference that because he was a bookmaker previously he had carried on the business later. The evidence of the Constables was, as counsel said, that of very little i more than boys. One had done a very foolish thing; perhaps he had done it thoughtlessly. He put on a returned soldier’s badge—a badge which they all honored—to obtain evidence of sly-grog selling. Whether this showed him to be utterFy undependable and that he would come to the court and tell a lie in the witness-box, was for the jury to say‘. Evidently it had not been considered that he had suffered in his character, otherwise he would not have been retained in the force. He was sent up to New Plymouth for the purpose of obtaining evidence as to bookmaking, and there was nothing wrong in employing officers in such a manner. Touching on counsel’s argument that the betting slips were capable of an innocent explanation, His Honor pointed out that Allen had made a bet with a total stranger and that the various slips found in his possession contained records of varying amounts. The jury retired at one o’clock, and returned at *2.45 p.m. with a verdict of not guilty. Allen was then discharged.