LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1740, 3 May 1913, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

LOWER COURT. , CROP OF GAMING ACT CHARGES. POLICE FIELD DAY. ONE PENALTY OF £30 IMPOSED. Quite a crop of eases under the Gaming Act and Lioensing Act came before Mr. W. G. Kiddell, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday, and in one of these a penalty of £30 was im- . posed. Ten persons were charged in all. These were as follow:—Christopher Jansen, licensee of . the Wellington Hotel, was charged on six informations with permitting and conniving at gambling on his'licensed premises; Diehard Dwyer, licensee of the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel, similarly charged on eight informations; Andrew Martin, charged on one information with betting in the Wellington Hotel; Salvatore Salvery, chargedon six informations with betting in the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel; William Ham, charged on two informations with betting in the Wellington Hotel; Thomas DaltOn, ■ charged on two informations with betting in the Wellington Hotel; James Andrew Smith, charged with betting in Willis Street; Samuel Rogers, charged on two informations with betting in Willis Street; Frank Kettlewell, alleged betting , in Willis Street; Joseph Eichards, charged on two informations with betting in a public place, bo wit, the Dominion Billiard Saloon. . In the cases heard yesterday Messrs. Myers and Fitzgibbon defended, and Po-lice-Inspector Hendry prosecuted. Mr. Myers asked that the cases against the two hotelkeepers be taken first. Ho was prepared to assume, for the purpose • of argument, that betting had taken place on their premises, and, in making that assumption, he submitted that the police could not succeed in their prosecution under Section 185 of the Licensing Act, under which the informations had been laid. Both the defendants would plead not guilty, and it would be impossible (as far as he knew) for the police to prove that /there was any personal permission. Continuing, Sir. Myers said that the only prohibition contained in Section 185 of the Licensing Act of 1908 waa "suffering any unlaivful game." Unlawful games were a restricted' class. Under the Gaming Act, no doubt, the probability was that an. "unlawful game would include my game of chance, but even under that interpretation lawful games could still be /played. In the English statute the .word gaming" was used, and in the New Zealand Act "gambling." These were synonymous terms, but Betting, he contended, was not gaming in the legal sense. That must be so. as a matter of common sense, if "gaming' and "gambling" were synonymous. His Worship stated that the cases against Dwyec and Jansea would be adjourned. The First Case. The charge against James Andrew Smith waa them dealt with.

Constable Charles Alfred Corlett said that on April i he saw defendant at the corner of Mercer Willis Streets hand a race card to three men. He also saiv money pass. Witness said to defendant, "Any chance of a bet, old manp" Aid he received a "doable" card. la the corner of. tho card was marked "<£i to Is." Witness took a "double,' J :and-(;avo defendant his initials "G.i.C .""'Ha' als<<' took another double and handed dcHJKiaut another shilling. Defendant then said he would seo witness en the following night at the same place at 8 ■ . , . -Ronald I'Werick' Thomas, constable, gave corroboritivo evideufce.

Detectiv>Sorg€tLnt Cassells said that )i» had also seen defendant and had warned him. . Mr. .Myers submitted that one bet did not constitute a bookmaker, and the police had 'to prove that tho defendant was a bookmaker, and that defendant mado a- bet as a bookmaker. His Worship reserved decision. Wellington Hotel Casos. The next case taken was that of William. Ham, who was charged with betting on the premises of the Wellington Hotel. Detective-Sergeant Cassells stated that he knew the defendant as a bookmaker. To Mr. Myers: He did not know of his own knowledge that defendant had 'any other work. ' Constable Eonald F. Thomas gave evidence to the effect that he was in the Wellington Hotel on April 9, in company with Constable Corlett. Witness ■ and Corlett both took doubles from Ham on races to be run at Palmerston North. Robert Rose, ship's carpenter, was called for the defence. He said that he 'knew- the, defendant as an employer of labour. He was a kind of contractor. Inspector Hendry: How do you live? Witness: I have a little income. Inspector Hendry: Which is supplemented by a little more income from the defendant. . Witness: No, Mr. Ham never gives me any money. • Inspector Hendry: Is it not a fact that you have been acting as clerk to. the fendant? Witness: No, I don't know anything about figures. , Mr. Myers said he would withdraw tho plea of not guilty in this case, and would enter a plea of guilty, as he understood . that the police would be satisfied • with one conviction. This course was agreed to, 'and the second charge was withdrawn. | His Worship fined defendant .230, and costs. ■ • Alleged Betting in Willis Street, Samuel Rogers (two informations) and Frank Kettlewell (one information) were charged with betting in Willis Street. ' Constable Thomas said that ho asked Rodgers if he had "opened up yet." Rodgers replied that he had. He then described certain betting which he had with defendant. Detective-Sergeant Cassells, who was called by Mr. Myers for the defence, deposed to both men being decent hardworking men, who were not known to him as bookmakers. ' , His Worship dismissed the case against Kettlewell,' and reserved his decision in tho case against Rogers. Salvatore Salvery's Case. The next case" was that of Salvatore Salvcry, barman in tho Duke of Edinburgh Hotel. In all. 6ix charges were preferred against defendant. N ' Constable Thomas, in evidence, stated that ho visited tho Duko of Hotel on tho evening of March 27. He did not then see any evidence of betting. Two evenings later he. again visited the hotel, and saw the defendant hand a man a race card. Witness then asked defendant for a card, and also asked for a "diublo" card. Defendant took one out of his pocket and handed it tohim. Tho odds marked 011 tho card were £20 to ss. Witness picked two horses and paid defendant 55., which tho defendant booked. Constablo Corlett, who accompanied Thomas, also took a doublo from defendant. Witness and Corlett paid another visit to the hotel on March 31, and Loth had straight-out bets of _ss. on different horsos. 011 another occasion he asked defendant if ho could get a bet on Portland Lady, and defendant replied "Yes," and witness handed defendant 2si Cd. Later witness again visited defendant, and collected some money which ho had won on his "doubles." Detective-Sergeant Cassells (in reply to Mr. Myers) admitted that defendant was a decent man, and was not a recognised bookmaker. Mr. Myers said that, in this case, the ovidenco was not disputed. Tho only question to be decided was whether the defendant was a bookmaker within the meaning of the statute. He was indebted to Detective-Sergeant Cassells for his very fail' evidence. The recognised bookmaker issues properly-printed "double" cards, and ho submitted that tho defendant (whoso cards wero written ones) could not be termed a bookmaker. _ His Worship reserved dccisioni

| The other cases were adjourned until I this morning.

Other Court Cases, Hop Tie, who did not appear, was fined 10s. and costs 7s. for using unstamped weights. Three Hindu fruit hawkers were each fined ss. and costs Vs. for using unstamped weighing machines. James Driscoll, proprietor of a shooting gallery in Willis Street, was fined 20s. with cost's 9s. for keeping the saloon open after hours. The Inspector of Factories proceeded against Conrad and Sons, for keeping their shop in Willis Street open after hours. A fine of 20s. and costs 7s. was imposed. On a similar charge John Kuch was fined a similar amount, and Israel Montague, who had also failed to comply with the law, was fined 20s. and Is. costs. Arthur Edward Preston, for failing to close his shop in Willis Street on the hafl-holiday, was fined 20s. and costs 7s. Kong Lee was fined 20s. and costs 79. for keeping his premises open on a recent Wednesday afternoon. On charges of employing assistants after hours Mouat Bros., and Tung Howe were each fined 10s. with costs 7s. On charges of insobriety Joseph Cowan and William Balfe were each fined 10s. in default 48 hours' imprisonment. One first offender on a similar charge waa fined 10s. in default 48 hours' imprisonment, and three other offenders were convicted and discharged. Edward Hnrry Eaton was fined ss. and Court costs 7s. for failing to register a birth as required by the Act.