SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 263, 26 July 1918, Page 8

SUPREME COURT

BETTING CASES

DEFENDANTS' APPEALS

DISMISSED

In tho Supreme Court yesterday ilis Honour, Mr. Justice Chapman, heard tlio case ot Albert Yanco Steward, a general (ippoul from ii decision of Mr. L. (j. liuid, S.M.

Mr. M. Myers appeared for the appellant, and Alt'. I'. ri, IC. Macasscy lor ihe Crown.

The tacts of the case were that appellant was convicted on an information Itud by Detective Cox on a charge thai, boitig the owner occupier, and having the use ot premises situate in Cornlnll Sheer, Wellington, he aid keep and use the same as a common gaming house, and was fined .K5, and costs, iu default one month's imprisonment. This conviction was recorded on June S), ISII7. Tho grounds ol' appeal were that tho conviction was against the weight of evidence, and generally that the said conviction was erroneous in law and fact.

-Mr. Macassey explained that the appellant Steward carried on business as a second-hand dealer in Cornhill Street, lie would show that George Dyhrberg, who was also appealing, was an agent for Steward. Two constables met D.vlirberg iu a billiard-room in.Manners Street and made bets with him iu the billiardroom. This was on May JS. the two constables went to ,Steward's promises in Cornhill Street, where they saw Steward and Dylnberg, and bets were again made, and racing cards obtained. Constable Stewart made a bet with Dyiirberg, and later Constable pawcett made '■a bet with Steward, who was at the time alone in his office. The constables cajne back in tho afternoon, and wished to make tots, but Steward replied that tlio constables were too late, as he was not making any more bets that day. Detectives Coi and Carney,-who were in Manners Street, then came down and searched the premises, finding certain printed matter and other paraphernalia.

Evidence was then given by Constables Stewart and Fawcett, and .Detectives Coi and Carney on the same lines as that given in the Magistrate's Court.

Mr. .Myers, in opening, said that tho case was a very different one from those that generally came before the Courts. It was not disputed that JJyhrberg had been making bet? and he frankly udniilled in the Lower Court having made bels in the billiard-room, and that it had nothing io do with Steward. The appellant Steward was a, second-hand de«ler in a large way. He was really a merchant, although he held a second-hand dealer's license. It appears that for some time after he started in business lie did not keep books showing his purchases of second-hand goods, because lie did not think he was obliged to do so. lie was prosecuted, and pieaded guilty, and was (lien advised to keep the necessary books. His business ran into thousands a year. Dyhrberg had been doing sonic buying for Steward on a commission basis, and he had access to, and kept always about linn, Steward's business cards. He also had the run of Steward's business premises, and went there often in connection with, his business with Steward, and also to deal with his own business and private correspondence. Dyhrberg was a Imokmaker in the old days when hookmakers were licensed, but went out of business when the licenses were withdrawn, but later tuok up bookniakhifi in a small way. He carried on by himself and for himself, and Steward had nothing lo do with him. Mr. Myers then contended that there was no evidence of people resorting lo Steward's premises for betting, as was general in Mich cases. There was no evidence of belting cards olid charts being about the place, such as were usually found in a common gaming house. Steward was a man who occasionally made a bet with a bookmaker, but he never made bets as a bookmaker. All that was found on the premises was two double cards, but not; in connection with the races held oil '.he day in question. The charge against Steward was that he kepi and used his premises as (i common gaming house on June 5. There was no evidence that ho kept a gaining house on that date or at any 'time.

His Honour: Two wen came to Slew ard's lo •mulre.bels.

Mr. Myers: Ves, with Dyhrberg, who was at the door. He frankly admit led the betting in the Lower Court.

M'r. Myers than intimated that he would call the two men, also Dyhrberg, to give evidence, and proceeded to do go. The evidence tendered was the same as that given in the I.ower Court.

After hearing evidence His Honour dismissed the appeal, with J!5 ss. costs. The appeal for George Dyhrberg was also dismissed, wilh .£5 ss. costs.