THE GAMBLING CRAZE

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 132, 21 February 1918, Page 6

THE GAMBLING CRAZE

BOOKMAKERS HEAVILY FINED

PENALTIES TOTAL £165

!At-the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr.. S. E." M'Carthy, S.M., those accused of breaches of the Gaming s Act appeared to answer several charges."':;, .... Henry Janies Wales, for whom Mr. -TvH. Gill appeared/was charged that lieing a bookmaker he. did make bets in the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel on four.separate /dates.. Accused pleaded guilty. Mr. Gill said that his client had; enlisted and was turned down. He then went 1.0 Victoria, where he suffered from pneumonia, and on re- . covery he returned to New Zealand. ■He was called in the ballot, and was again turned down for-defective hearing. He'had carried out his betting transactions without employing touts or agents, and had met all his obligations. Wales intended to give up betting, and for that reason counsel ask.ed that ho should be treated with the greatest possible leniency.

1 Chief Detective Boddam said that the informations were laid under Section is of the Gaming Act. The state- : mente made by counsel might be correct—he belioved they .were correct — but unfortunately for his . client he had been convicted of a similar offence on September 13, 1912, and was fined £20.

The Magistrate said that he. would take in co consideration the fact that Wales had intended to servo his country, but such men must not get it into their heads that they could break the law. Accused was fined £40 on one charge, and was convicted and ordered to come, up for sentence when 'called upon on the other. " John Laidlaw Walling pleaded guilty, through his counsel, Mr. E. K. Kirkcaldie, to being the occupier of certain premises 'in Willis Street and , using the samo as a common gaming house, and Arthur Walling pleaded guilty to assisting in conducting the ■Lusiness of a .common gaming house. Mr. Kirkcaldie said that John Walling jvas a bookmaker in a small way. At one time V.e was well off, and it 'Mis very well .known that he lost a great deal of money' in taking Arnst, the sculler, to England. The business an Willis Street was bought by Arthur . Walling about ten years ago, and the ' lease was in' his name. He carried on a legitimate' business as hairdresser and tobacconist. When Walling, sen., lost bis money ho naturally turned to his son and secured a ' position as salesman. Waiting's betting was on a .very small scale. The sou had resisted for />■ long time the making of bets, and it was ouly after extreme pressure .that he made small bets. •

Chief Detective Boddam said that some of the statements made by counsel were correct. Tho Walliugs, father and son, carried on a tobacconist's ' business in Willis Street. Two constables, strangers-to Wellington, acting : under instructions, made several bets with'the Waitings. John Walling had been previously convicted and fined for somewhat similar offences committed at Napier, Dannevirke, and Palmersfon North.. The Chief Detective ■ contended ' that these ' gaming houses were a menace to. the young men of- the city. '

John Laidlinv Walling was fined £50 and costs, in default three mouths' imprisonment, and Arthur Walling was fined £'25, with the option of a month's •imprisonment. Each defendant was allowed a month in which to pay the line. : '

Mr. H. F. O'Leary, on behalf of IVrcy Winters, pleaded guilty to two charges of betting on licensed premises (Duke of Edinburgh Hotel), 'l'here were two other charges which were withdrawn by the police. Mr. O'Leary said that \Viutors had had no previous, conviction—he was not a man wiio made a living by betting; furthermore it was not suggested that he was .a regular bookmaker.

Cnief Detective' Boddam said that defendant had not been before the Court previously. He was employed 'at' the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel, .where the bets were made.

Winters was lined £20 and.costs, in default one month's imprisonment, and ; ;was allowed a month in which to pay ithe tine.

James Henry Rogers, for whom Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared, was charged with—(l) Laying totalisator odds on ,I'eruary 1. (2) Publishing a "double" ' betting chart on February 2. (3) Publishing a "double" betting chart on -I'ebruary •!.: (4) Being a bookmaker, he did bet on licensed premises, to •wit, the Empire Hotel. He pleaded not guilty.

Chief Detective Boddam prosecuted. The fourth charge was takeii first. Herbert James Le Suouer, a constable, said lie was brought up from Christchurcli and while in Wellington assumed the name of Edward.Parsons. During his stay in Wellington he was an honorary member of the Wellington iWorking Men's Club, where he met the, defendant. He detailed at length the several betting transactions lie had with the defendant, and the receipt from the defendant of "double" betting charts..

■ Frederick William Marsh, manager of the Wellington Working Men's Club, .testified that Le Sueur was introduced to him as Edward Parsons, and the latter was made-,an honorary member of the club. Rogers was a carrier, and had been a member of the club for several years.

. Detective-Sergeant Cox said. he. arrested Rogers on February 13 in Willis vStreet. Ho searched and found on ..him £28'18s. ll£d., of which £19 10s. •was in gold. He also found on him a single race card on the Eginont races, to be held that day. When charged defendant made no statement.

Detective Carney said he knew Rogers, who was a carrier and a bookmaker. • j . Mr. O'Leary said he did not know whether Constable Le Sueur was .mixing up the transactions with Rogers .with somebody else. However, he would plead guilty to the charge. He pointed out that for a bookmaker betting on licensed premises there was a minimum penalty, but on'the other charges there was a maximum penalty. He pointed out that Rogers was a hard working man, and had not previously iboen beforo the Court.

Rogers was convicted and fined £20 &nd costs. Charges 2 and 3 were withdrawn, and for laying totalisator odds he was fined £10 and costs.

George William Lees, Edgar Albert -Edwards, and Frank Greaney were ■charged with being found without lawful excuse on the premises of a common gaining house. The case against 'Arthur Cunningham was withdrawn, ) as he was on'the promises to be sliiiv<ei, and was actually being shaved >iwhen the police raided the premises. \ilr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for Ed- ■ wards and Greaney, and Mr. E. It ; Kirkcaldie for Lees. It was stated that 'the latter was a hairdresser and worked for AValling, jun., and had a half interest in the hairdressing saloon. He ihad-a betting card in his possession, '.Tnit it was stated that lie obtained that •while travelling in a tramcar. There 'was not sufficient evidence to convict 'the others, and the informations against all three were dismissed. "The charges against Clarence Atlol- ; phus Lo Sueur;' publishing "double" I Letting charts and laying totalisator 'fidds, and Henry Martmdale, betting : si, licensed premises, will be consider'Jd on Ma rod li, when tho defendants Dill be represented by Mr. M. Myers.