18 BETTING GAMBLING?

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 146, 9 March 1918, Page 8

18 BETTING GAMBLING?

INTERESTING POINT OF LAW. Francis James Oakes, licensee of the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel, was charged, in the Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mi\ S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., on five informations of permitting or conniving at gambling on the premises. Inspector Marsaclc prosecuted, and Mr. M. Myers appeared for the defendant, Inspector Marsack said that during the period'covered by the informations two bookmakers were convicted of betting on the premises. One of these Was an employee of the defendant, and further he would call evidence to show that even the barmaids in the house helped the bookmakers to carry on their business. Mr. Myers said that the informations were laid under Section 185 of the Licensing Act. The term gambling was used in two senses—it was used in its legal sense and in its popular sense. In its popular sense it involved the idea of excessive stakes. Gambling in law was synonymous with gaming, and it was held in a case heard in lingland, by three learned Judges that betting was not gaming. Mr. Myers pointed out that about two yaars ago similar charges were laid against three hotelkeepers, for whom he appeared, when he raised the point that he was now raising and the presiding Magistrate (Mr. W. G. Kiddell) upheld his contention. Betting was not gaming, and even if the licensee permitted or connived at betting he could not be convicted on these informations.

The Magistrate decided to hear the evidence.

Herbert James Le Sueur, constable, stationed at Ghristchurch. said he was in Wellington in January and February, on special duty. On January 18 he went to the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel, and saw Percy Winter working in the private bar. ' Winter was subsequently convicted and fined for betting on licensed premises. He detailed various betting transactions he had with Whiter and a bookmaker named Henry James Wales, who had also been convicted and fined!

Frederick W. Gustaver, constable, stationed at Christchurch, and in Wellington on special duty, gave evidence in support of that tendered by the previous witness. Mr. Myers contended thai the case should be dismissed on the point be had already raised. Betting it had been decided was not gaming, and gambling and gaming were synonymous in law under the section of the Licensing Act. Sinct betting was not gambling his client could not he convicted for allowing gambling on tho premises.'Section 185 of the Licensing Act did not specifically name betting. The Magistrate reserved his decision on the point raised, and Mr. Myers reserved the right to call evidence.