Mexborough and Swinton Times October 11, 1929
Candid Bookmaker.
A Wath Prosecution.
Albert Edward Gilford (49), licensed bookmaker, 193, Doncaster Road, Wath, who pleaded guilty, was fined £25 at Rotherham West Riding Police Court on Monday, for having kept a betting house at Wath. Mr. A. S. Furniss, of Messrs. Gichard and Co., solicitors, appeared on behalf of the defendant.
P.c. Flint said observation was kept on 193. Doncaster Road on Sept. 11, 12, and 13, and on those days 127, 139, and 159 persons were seen to enter the premises.
Mr. Furniss: How many unregistered bookmakers do you know in Wath?—Witness: None.
I should not be far out if I said there were 40 unregistered bookmakers at Wath ? I could not say.
Is not it a fact that every single man-jack of these so-called credit bookies are ready money bookies ?–I am not aware of the fact.
There has not been a single bet taken by this man from a boy or girl, and I am going to suggest that the children seen by you to go into the house were either members of his own family or neighbours’ children? — No sir. I know one of the girls who entered the house, and she was not his daughter.
Do you suggest she went there for the purpose of betting?—Yes.
P.s. Galloway said he visited defendant’s house with a search warrant on Sept. 14th, and on a table, found 37 slips relating to 54 horses. There was also other betting material in the room. When charged with the offence, Gilford replied, “Yes.” Gilford was a licensed bookmaker, and paid £40 a year in respect of his bookmaker’s business.
In reply to Mr. Furniss, witness said that Gilford was a respectable bookmaker, and had got a certificate for his son.
Mr. Furniss : I put it there are nine respectable bookmakers in Wath, and a number of unlicensed ones ?—I don’t know.
How is it that you only get these people who advertise it on their windows? Why don’t you get the people who haven’t got licences? I put it to you that you watch these poor licensed bookmakers, and the unlicensed men are ignored ?—No.
Mr. Furniss, addressing the magistrates, said he thought the man who took out a licence and paid £40 per annum was entitled to more consideration from the Bench than a man who did not pay a licence, and did his bookmaking in the hedge bottom, and who when caught, was only charged with street betting. The defendant had got a bookmaker’s certificate and the Government should be blamed for taking the money by false pretences. He suggested that a bookmaker who had a certificate should be put on a different scale to the men who had not certificates. The police were always watching these places. On one occasion a Government auditor thought he was going to, be caught red-handed when he was doing the defendant’s books, for the police were watching the premises then. The defendant’ had paid over £300 in Government tax, and now the tax had dropped off the Government thought they could get money by catching these men.
The Chairman (Mr. I. S. Colton-cox): In cases like this we cannot allow personal feelings to prevail. The law is there.
Mr Furniss: You can carry out in such a way as sure what you think of the measure.
The Magistrates Court (Mr George Clews): And therefore encourage these men to continue with?
Mr Furniss: Will you stop them doing it?
Defendant then gave evidence and said he did not see seven children. He had sent them home rather than accept bets from them.
Mr. Furniss : Is there one bookmaker out of a thousand who does not use his Premises for ready money betting?–No.
Supt. Horton: Is it your, intention to continue ready money betting?—I can’t carry on unless I do. There is one dishonest way of betting, and that is credit betting, because they don’t feel when they lose.
I don’t do ready money betting, and then go away and do it. I do a certain amount of ready money betting. There is only one dishonest way of betting, and that is credit betting, because they don’t pay up when they lose.
Supt. Horton: Is it true that you can’t carry on without ready money betting?–No, I can’t carry on.
Then those who come here and say they can are telling lies?–Yes, they must be.
It was stated that defendant had been fined on several occasions for street betting, and in 1924 he was fined £50 for having kept a betting house at Wath.
The Chairman said they had taken into consideration the fact that defendant had a long list against him, and one with “a bit of form” about it. The last fine was a stiff one, but that was before the betting tax