RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1045, 11 September 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

ASHBURTON—To Day.

(Before H. C. S. Eaddeley Esq, R.M.)

Drunkenness.— Two men namedPullar and Greenless were fined ss, with the alternative of 24 hours’ imprisonment for this offence. Breach of Borough By-Laws. —G. L. Brown was fined 10s for neglecting to keep a lamp ligh'ed, contrary to the Borough by-laws, and 0. 0. Fooks had to pay 5s for allowing a horse to wander at large. • ; Cruelty to a Horse. —H. Dysart was charged with ill-treating a horse, by allowing it to remain tied up in the open air for a period of six and a half hours. The evidence showed that defendant had been warned, and had simply taken the horse away to some other place where it was afterwards found by the police and put into a stable. The defendant said that he did not know he was doing any harm in •leaving his horse outside an hotel while he was transacting business, as it was a very common practice m country districts. —The Court inflicted a fine of L 3, with the alternative of fourteen days’ imprisonment.

. Keeping a Gambling House.—George Gaukrodger was brought up charged with being the pccupier of a certain room in a house situated in Gray street, and that he unlawfully used the said house for the purpose of carrying on unlawful gaming' therein.—Sergeant Felton conducted the prosecution, and Mr Purnell appeared on behalf of the defendant.—Mr Purnell submitted that no offence had been disclosed in the charge, but he did not press the objection.—The following evidence was then called :—Robert Alcorn deposed that defendant was employed by him as salesman up to Saturday week last. He was engaged at 13 a week. —Cross-examined : Defendant was not married. Witness knew defendant’s uncle who was pretty well off.— Wm. Townshend, a merchant living in Gray street, said that accused occupied the same house with witness up to the 3rd 1 inst. The rgreement was that witness paid the rent and defendant paid an amount for bills equivalent. They were the ouly occupiers of the house, and they had liyecP together about eighteen months. The house contained three rooms, two of which were used as sleeping and sitting rooms and the other as a kitchen. Remembered August 29th when, witness went home at tea o’clock and found accused and McGregor sitting in the kitchen gambling. McGregor went away about half-past twelve, witness staying up till then, because he knew there was ill feeling between the two men, although they appeared friendly. The game they played was “ bluff,” and Gaukrodger lost about L2O, which was paid in gold and silver. Saw McGregor exchange two L 6 notes for accused. This was the only time witness had seen them gambling in the house. Had cau ioned accused several times about gambling.—Cross-examined : The landlord of the house was Coutts, to whom witness paid the rent. When Gaukrodger left, witness did not make other arrang ments about the rent. Was not present when McGregor came nor did he know why he was there.—To the Bench : Knew what accused’s means were, and thought the stakes played for more than ho could afford. When Gaukrodger gambled he lost his head. The landlord knew nothing of the accused in the matter of renting the {house. —James McGregor, grocer’s assistant to Messrs Friedlander Bros, said that ho was in receipt of L 3 a week. Remembered going to accused’s house on the 29th August. Gaukrodger and witness went out to buy a paor of cards for the purpose of playing euchre. On returning played a game of “ bluff,” but could not say what was the amount of the stakes, as it varied considerably. Witness then explained the nature of the game, and said it was recognised as being played for money. Played for a period of three hours, and a great many games were got through. Witness won a little over L2O during that time. Left the house at a quarter past twelve.—Crossexamined : Had known accused about two or three years, and was on tolerably friendly terms with him. Thought he suggested a game of euchre, which was not a game accused “ did not understand.” Witness heard from the police that he and Gaukrodger were implicated in a charge of gaming. Did not communicate with the police, who came to the shop for him.—Richard Bevan, bookseller, knew accused, who purchased a pack of cards from witness.— Robert Neill, constable, said that from instructions received he went on the sth Sept, to serve a summons on accused whom he found at Upper Waiau, on the Hanmer plains. Aft r being served accused asked witness what would be his best course, and he advised him to return to Ashburton to answer the summons. Returned with accused to Hurunui, and on Saturday found him at Christchurch and followed him to the salqyards, where he arrested him on a warrant. Warned Gaukrodger not to sell his saddle and bridle, as he might lose the run of it. Arrested accused on a telegram as he suspected he was about to leave the colony. Gaukrodger admitted that he was guilty of the charge.—Cross-examined : Accuse 1 might hare been on the way to Ashburton when he was arrested. This closed the case for the police.—Mr Purnell said that there was nothing to answer, as ao: cused was simply playing for money in his own private house. There was nothing in the law of New Zealaild to vent a man doing this. Counsel quoted from the English Act, which was identical with the colonial one, to show that what was referred to was a common gaming house. The police had not proved that the p'ace where accused and Townshend lived was in any sense a gaming house. On the contrary, the evidence showed that Townshend had never seen gambling in the house previous to the 29th August. There was a legal maxim which' said that a “ man’s house is his castle,” and he contended tjiat; thivhad.never,been evaded 1 by any Court. Even if the place were a i gaming bouse there was no penahy pro- I

vided in the Act to' meet this.—The Court expressed a wish to hear the defendant, but Mr Purnell said he did not intend to call him, as it wou'd be admitted that on the 29th August a certain game was played in the house.— In reference to the law point submitted by Mr Parnell the Court ruled that considering the evidence of Townshend it was plain that the house did not come under the definition of a common gaming house according to the 28th section. It was a very serious case and strong evidence should be requited to, ensure a-pon-viction. Under the circumstances the case would be dismissed.—This decision was greeted with applause. . .