MAXIMUM FINES.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 18904, 20 January 1927, Page 8

MAXIMUM FINES.

BOOKMAKERS BEFORE COURT. CASES AT TIMARI. At the Timaru Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr C. 11. o**r* Walker, S.M., William Karton (Mr L. E. Finch) appeared on remand charged with being the occupier of certain promises which were used as a common gaming house. He was also charged with carrying on the business of a bookmaker.' A plea of guilty was entered Inspector Kemp asked leave to withdraw the second charge, which was granted. Charles Sloacombe (Mr L. h. lunch) also appeared on remand charged with assisting William Karton to conduct certain premises as a common gaming he-use. A plea of guilty was also entered in this case. Alfred Huston (Mr W. A. Scott) was also charged with being the occupier of certain prepiises which were used as a common gaming house. A charge of carrying oh tlio business of a bookmaker was also preferred. Mr Scott pleaded guilty for defendant. The charge of bookniaking was withdrawn. Inspector Kemp said that the informations were laid under Section 4 of the Gaming Act, 1908. It had often been levelled against the police that thev usually selected the small man, but that was not so. Many people did not look upon it as an offence "to bet with a bookmaker, but they had to have it impressed on them they were running a big risk by so doing. Both Huston and Karton were wealthy nien, in fact Huston had over £4OO pn liiro when arrested. It was not often that lie asked the Court to inflict the maximum penalty, which was £IOO or three months' imprisonment, but these were cases where bucli was advisable. Mr Finch said that the case was the first of its kind in Timaru, and it was the first complaint laid against Karton. , For Huston Mr Scott said that he had always borne a very good character. The Magistrate said that such a. prnctico was very hard to detect and seldom would any jury convict. He took up the attitude that the maximum penalty must, as a matter ot course, follow unless the accused could give some good reason why it should be reduced, Many years ago the maximum penalty of £IOO was. fixed, and at that time it was, perhaps severe. To-day the value of the £IOO was a, mere nothing. It w»8 only the cleverness of expert detcetivep and their as* sistants who could catch these- men, and they must pay the penalty. The maximum fine of £IOO/ would be inflicted in each, case. . , Mr Finch asked for time for bloaconibe to pay, _ The Magistrate said it was not as though Sloacombe were an innocent man and that he had just come into the business. What reason had he to come to Court and say: "Please let me have time to pay"iP