THE AUCKLAND RAID.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1419, 20 April 1912, Page 4

THE AUCKLAND RAID.

FURTHER FINES.

WHAT THE SUB-INSPECTOR FOUND.

REMARKS BY MAGISTRATE,

(By Tclezrnrili.-I'ress Association.)

Auckland, April 19. Tho hearing of the charges against John Ryan, that being occupier of a billiardroom in Vulcan Lane, ho received moncyf as bets, and kept tho promises for purposes of betting, was commenced yesterday afternoon, and continued to-day. Sub-Inspector Ecudrcy stated, in tho course of oritlonco given concerning th 3 raid conducted by himself on Ryan's premises, that ho had discovered eeveral "doublo cards," somo of which had obviously been used, in defendant's coat pockets. Ho had found cards recording bets, an urgent telegram from Peilding relating to betting matters, and other papers. Witness had had defendant's premises under observation for three months. It was a well-known rendezvous for bookmakers. Mr. Hackett protested at this stage that such a statement as tho foregoing was not evidence that Ryan kept a common, gaming-house. Ho contended that the Act concerned only such betting as Ryan himself indulged in. Ho was not responsible for betting which people who went to the house carried on among themselves. Tho Sub-Inspector went on to say that Ryan was a well-known bookmaker at ono time. To Mr. Hackett: When ho went into tho billiard room there wero between 20 and thirty persons there, and all tho tables wero occupied. Races wero being held in two southern towns that day. There was no evidence, that Ryan had on that day umdo a bet on cither of those two meetings, Evidence was given by Detective- Scott and Sergeant Bird. Sergeant O'Grady gave evidence that in a cupboard in Ryan's premises ho had found doublo charts Telating to races at Foilding and Christchurch, and in a small notebook he had found notes of bets made on those meetings. Another witness gave- evidence that h« had mado two bets with Ryan on Saturday, April G, .£1 on Antoinette, and XI on Prince Soult. Ryan gave no check on tho bets, and made no nolo of them that witness could see. Tho billiard room was a common plnco to which to go to make bets with different bookmakers who frequented this place. Witness thought that Ryan could not help knowing what went on.

To Mr. Hackett: Witness had been in tho polico force, but had resigned on Mb own accord in November. Ho had made bets with Ryan at the request of the Inspector of Police, and had received and expected no reward of any kind for doingso. Ho was taking his present action for tho good of tho town. Witness admitted that he was employed on the totalisator during Christmas week.

Referring to certain legal points that had been raised during tho hearing of tho cose for tho prosecution, the magistrate said ho was satisfied that a. betting house was in certain circumstances a gaming house'," although a gaming house was not necessarily ft betting house. If a. gaminj houso was entered under warrant, the possession of instruments of gaining was evidence, but there was no corresponding provision for treating betting papers, double ovent cardsj etc., as evidence. It therefore followed that tlio evidence of finding papers on bookmakers- was not itdmissiblo us evidence. The finding of charts, etc., on accused himself was evidence, but so far as the other peoplo in' tho room wero concerned, that wa9 not evidence. The police enso was confined to this: Was there evidence that Ryan himself carried on tho-business of betting? There was, however, a easo to l>e answered. Apart from witness's evidence tlioro was tho telegram as prima fncie ovldonee of a second betting transaction. There was, moreover, no demur at one witness's offer to bet on tho premises. Mr. Hackett contended that tho evidence obtained ridiculed the idea that tho place was a common gaming house, Ryan had uiado no entry of the bets referred to, and the explanation was that tho witness in question had asked Ryan to put money on tho totalisator, as he himself was engaged on tho totalisator. Evidonco on tho lines indicated by Mr. Hackett was given by accused Ryan. Tho magistrate said that taking everything into consideration, ho had decided to convict. As to tho penalty, that would depend on tho kind of house he had conducted. The Sub-Inspector said that it had been suggested that Ryan's billiard-room had been a perfect hell frequented by thiovoß, card-sharpers, and others with whom young men came into contact. Many betting men of course wero honourable men whoso word was as good as many a nian'i bond. Mr. Hackett pointed out that tho conviction would itself take away Ryan's only means of livelihood, in itself a heavy penalty. Tho magistrate said Ryan was evidentIy in poorer circumstances than tho average man of that kind, but the fact that' ho was conducting along with his illegal business a legal business which led youu? men into temptation, conflicted with a desiro to treat leniently on that account. Ryan was really worse than tho others wlio had been convicted. His Worship wished to say that the amount of the fiuo was not to be taken as showing that Ryan was less guilty than others. He. was making allowance for Ryan's poorer circumstances and for the fact that he would suffer very serious loss through tho'aliuost certain loss of his billiard license Ho was fined .£SO and costs on tho charge of keeping a gaming house, and on tho charge of making bets was ordered to come'up for sentence when called upon. Three months would' be given in which to pay the fine. Four persons for being found on the premises wero fined £1 each. l'red. Williams and Charles Daroy, two reputed bookmakers, who pleaded guilty to charges of having mode bets, were each fined .425 with costs.

In connection with the matter of costs, his Worship said that lie did not wish an impression to go abroad that because ho had allowed costs against tho police in cases where an information had been dismissed he thought (bo police had exceeded their uty. Tho police had no other course- to follow than (o arrest all tho persons found in what was believed to bo a gaming house. JTo proposed to.recommend (hat costs against tho police in those cases bo paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Dr. Bagford and Mr. Haeltctt both f.o«tified that their clients had been treated with courtesy and consideration by the police, and endorsed his Worship'* remarks.