ALLEGED GAMBLING IN AN HOTEL

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 148, 12 March 1918, Page 7

ALLEGED GAMBLING IN AN HOTEL

THE DUKE OP EDINBURGH CASE,

In 'the Magistrate's Court yesterday fternoon, before Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, i.M., eyjdonce for the defence was iaken in the case in' which Francis Joseph Oakes, licensee of the Duke of Sdinburgh Hotel, was charged with .permitting or conniving at gambling )n his licensed premises. At the. hearng last week Mr. M. Myers, who appeared for the defendant, raised a nonsuit point, which the Magistrate reserved for decision, but on that point lo decision had been given. Francis Joseph Oakes said that in 1916 >ho was aware that betting was being carried on in the hotel bar, and bo immediately took steps to put a stop to it. He issued oral as well as written instructions to his employees Hot to permit betting on the premises, and witness himself took steps to keep ont) man off the premises whom he thought' might cause trouble. That man had been fined for betting, but not at the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel. He superintended the hotel and bars himself, and had not; delegated that! authority to anyone. He had no rea-l son to believe that betting was being i carried on in the hotel. ' ] Peter Hctner, head barman at tho! hotel, said he had received a printed notico from Mr. Oakes with respect to betting on the promises. Ho had also been warned by Mr. Oakes orally not to allow gambling in the hotel. Mr. Oakes went through the bars frequently each day.. Percy Winter, barman, cellarman, j and storeman at the Duke of Edin-1 burgh Hotel, said he received a print-1 ed notice from Oakes with respect to I preventing betting, and ho, had nk been spoken to on the subject by him. i Witness said ho was convicted and! fined for betting in the hotel. H« I never did any betting when the licenseo j was about, and the latter could not! have known that witness was tatting J The bets he mado.with the two con- j stables on whose evidence he was con- \ yicted were the only bets ho ever mado in tho hotel. Ho denied acting as I agent for Rogers, an alleged book-1 maker. He bet with another man, i but refused to say who that was. Wit-! ness was still in the service of Mr. j Oakes, whom he had promised never : to bet again. . ; Mr. Myers, in addressing tho Court,: referred to the Licensing Act and the; Gaming Act to clear away some confu- i sion bearing on the nonsuit' point he i had raised previously, and proceeded' to define gaming and gambling, as fixed ! by law. In point of fact he amplified i Jifs nonsuit point. , j _ The Magistrate reserved his deci-1 sion. !