STREET BETTING IN GISBORNE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3583, 24 July 1912, Page 6

STREET BETTING IN GISBORNE.

A STIFF FINE IMPOSEDMAGISTRATE’S RESERVED DECISION. Yesterday morning Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., gave judgment in the case of Frederick Stevens, who pleaded not ■guilty to a charge of street betting preferred against lilm last week. The police case, it will be re-called was that a constable camo up behind defendant, looked over his shoulder, and saw him writing in the two racing cards produced, which contained many figures. Tho constable said to defendant, “What have you there?” He said “Cards,” and put them into his pocket. When first asked to show them defendant refused, but afterwards handed the cards over.

Mr Burnard, for the defence, urged that no offence had been disclosed. The police had simply proved that the defendant had been copying certain information from one racing card to another. The race had been run on the 3rd of June, and on the 4th the defendant was seen to be copying out this information in the street. This did not constitute using the street for the purpose of betting. Tho information so copied—the names of the winners and the dividends paid—could not possibly have been used for the purpose of betting, for the race had already been run. It was precisely the same as if the defendant had, after leaving a race meeting, copied in the names of the winners and the dividends in the race-hooks sold by the racing club. It was absurd to suggest that such an action amounted to a use of the street for tho purpose of betting. Many people who took an interest in racing noted up the names of the winners and the dividends paid and they could quite legitimately do so without cither having laid a hot with a bookmaker, and without having any intention of so doing. They were simply noting down information which was of interest to them as members of the sporting community. Further than that, the object aimed at by the Statute was to prevent the street being blocked and the free passage of people along tho streets being interfered with by bookmakers and the betting fraternity. Tho simple act of copying from one race card to another in no way interfered with people, and did not come within the purview of the Statute. His Worship, in giving reserved judgment, said he was satisfied that a betting transaction took place, and that the defendant was in the Street fc the purpose of betting. Defendant would be convicted and fined in the sum of £25, with costs (7s), in default two months imprisonment.