Thе defendant was convicted upon two indictments which severally alleged that “on the thirtieth day of December . . . [1961 he] was concerned in the setting up of a certain lottery for money, to wit: the so called number pool,” and that on the same day he “was found [on William J. Day Boulevard in Boston] with certain apparatus, books and other devices, for the registering оf bets upon the results of trials and contests of the skill, speed and endurance of . . . horses.” The defendant was tried conсurrently on an indictment charging him with corruptly offering a gift or gratuity to a police officer. He was acquitted on that chаrge. The proceedings were subject to Gr. L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G-. The defendant assigns as error (1) the qualification of a witness as an expert on gambling and gambling paraphernalia, (2) the admission in evidence of certain testimony given by that witness, and (3) the refusal оf the trial judge to grant his motions for directed verdicts.
On December 30, 1961, at about 12:55 p.m., Arthur 0. Cadegan, Junior, a deputy superintendent in сharge of supervising the Dorchester, Roxbury, and Brighton districts with particular emphasis on bookmaking activities, received а telephone call. His caller, who identified himself as “Mr. Cassidy,” said he had some very valuable information to disclose. As a result of this call, Cadegan and Detective John Leary, in Leary’s car, proceeded to a rendezvous with the cаller on Day Boulevard near the Head House within an hour. A man approached the car, identified himself as “Cassidy,” and sought to speak to Cadegan alone. Cade-gan then walked with him to a car parked near by whereupon “Cassidy” identified himself as the defendant, John A. Boyle. They seated themselves in this car and Boyle inquired, “Why can’t we do business together?” and therеupon placed a flat package of bills against Cadegan’s coat. Cadegan responded, “You damn bookmakers think you can *3 buy anything,” and thereupon placed Boyle under arrest for attempting to bribe a police offiсer. Boyle was escorted to the rear seat of Leary’s car and taken to police headquarters. While en route, Cadegan noticed Boyle bent over with his hands touching the base of the rear seat. Upon arrival at headquarters Boyle was booked on suspicion of bribery of a police officer and was subjected to a search. This рroduced $800.81 in packaged bills and coins, and also six envelopes containing slips of paper upon which werе columns of figures headed by letters. An additional $700 in bills was discovered a short time later when Detective Leary returned to his сar and removed the rear seat.
At the trial, a police officer, John F. Doherty, was called to testify. He had beеn a police officer for almost nineteen years and served on the gaming squad for thirteen years. He had investigatеd over one thousand gaming cases, testifying in court relative to them approximately the same number of times. On about fifty occasions he had examined slips similar to those found on the defendant. He gave as his opinion that the slips were “memos between the bookmaker or office and the agent or writer. ’ ’ He further testified that the figures on the slips represented amounts received ‘ ‘ [f ] or writing the number pool play and the horse racing play” and gave a detailed analysis оf what the various entries on the slips meant. In cross-examination Doherty said that he had not in his experience encountered slips identical with those found on Boyle. He stated, however, that while the entries on the slips might represent “an unlimited number of other financial activities,” he considered the slips to be “obviously booking paraphernalia.”
1. The judge did not еrr in finding the witness Doherty qualified as an expert on gambling and gambling paraphernalia. He had had extensive experienсe in the field of gaming activities. “Whether the witness possessed the qualifications adequate to enable him to testify as аn expert rested in the first instance with the trial judge, and his decision was conclusive unless it appeared upon the evidence to be erroneous as matter of law.”
Commonwealth
v.
*4
Capalbo,
2. As an expert the jury were entitled to his help in unraveling the complexitiеs of that type of accounting found on the slips which were seized. His clear analysis was a valuable aid to the jury. ‘ ‘ There is no prescribed formality for the admission of expert testimony. All that is necessary is that the subject matter be one about which special knowledge beyond that possessed by the average juryman will aid the jury in their deliberations, and that a pеrson possessing such knowledge give opinions pertinent to the issues of the case founded upon facts which either are conceded or could warrantably be found upon other evidence. ’ ’
Lovasco
v.
Parkhurst Marine Ry.
3. There was no error in the refusаl to grant the defendant’s motions for directed verdicts. The indictments charged offences in the words of the statute and werе sufficient. Gr. L. c. 277, § 79.
Commonwealth
v.
Carlson,
Exceptions overruled.