PROSECUTION UNDER THE GAMING ACT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2409, 24 December 1881, Page 3

PROSECUTION UNDER THE GAMING ACT.

I PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM. J WELLINGTON, December 23. Great interest to-day was centred in the information laidl against Sir W. Pitzherbeit, the Hon. J. Martin, and two other gentlemen, for a breach of the Gaming and Lotteries Act by taking part in a sweepstake on the Hutt coarse on the 30th alt. The case was heard before the Iffagistrate and three Justices. After half-an-hour’s deliberation, the following judgment was delivered : —•* The Magistrates think they must convict the defendants. They think the facts alleged are proved, and that they are prohibited by law. They think that in cases like this persons likely to commit the prohibited act would think it prohibited by nothing bat the law, and therefore, as the only deterrent is the money lost, that should always be sufficiently substantial to deter. In this special case they think the eminence of the position of the defendants, and the publicity and deliberation of the act, cod for a vindication of the law,** Defendants were fined j£lo each. The Hon, J. Johnston, who was one of the Justices on the Bench, dissented from this decision. In another case, against six gentlemen en fa similar charge, five were discharged through insufficient evidence. However, the sixth, who had made an admission to the detective that ho had taken part in a sweep, was fined £2. Notice of appeal was given in all cases. The legal points raised by the defence were—lst. That the defendants were not partners i* any known legal interpretation of the word as used in the 18th and 19th clauses of the Act; that the partnership referred to was evidently that of persons who promoted a sweep for consideration or profit, sharing the profits or loss as a matter of business. 2nd. That the sections of the Act referred to evidently contemplated others than the partners in the sweep, as they expressly referred to those who hold tickets or were assured prizes. 3rd, That the whole policy of the Act was to put down organised and professional gambling, not to interfere with private amusement, and that the legul definition of gambling was playing to excess, not the mere act of playing a game, even for money. During the hearing of the case it transpired that the informant. Detective Chrystal, had actually held the kat while the tickets were being drawn. An information was, therefore, immediately laid against Chrystal for assisting in the affair.