“THE GAMBLER MUST GIVE UP"

Hokitika Guardian, 3 December 1920, Page 4

“THE GAMBLER MUST GIVE UP"

TWO AUCKLAND BOOKMAKERS FINED. (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, Dec. 1. “The contest between the law and the gambler has been on for a hundred years, but I think 1 it has approached the stage when the gambler must give up,” stated Mr J. W. Poynton, S.M., to-day, when two bookmakers—John Loughlin and Joseph Dixon—came before him as the first layers of adds inAuckland caught in the nest of the recently amended Gaining Act. Both men admitted having carried on the illegal occupation of bookmaking. Chief-Detective McMahon stated that

defendants were carrying on a little second-hand shop in Victoria street, and it was. discovered when DetectiveSergeant Hammond and Detective Knight raided the shop a week ago, that the defendants were really conducting an extensive business as bookmakers .in an office within the shop. The documents seized showed that their illegal business was extensive, running to a “double” of £IOOO on the forthcoming Auckland races. The defendants were experienced men, who kept at the business with the knowledge of the chances they took. Detective-Sergeant Hammond, in his evidence, said that one of the documents seized in tho defendant’s office was a double chart, showing that they were ready to lay any combination to the extent of £IOOO. Another document showed that their “double”, book on the second day of the Takapuna races, with only two days to fill it in, was £IOOO. Both were men of good character. .

.Mr Allan Moody, for Loughlin, pointed out that this was the first case in Auckland, if not in New Zealand, under the new Gaming Act, and the defendant did not realise the drastic nature of the Act, which increased the penalty to a £IOOO .fine or two years’ imprisonment, in addition to making people who bet with bookmakers liable also to penalties. Loughlin had practically been bred to the business, first as a jockey, and later as a legal bookmaker, consequently it was hard to him at 51 years of age to ohange his occupation,

Mr Meredith, for Dixon, made a similar plea, stressing the points that the defendant was 71 years of age, and was merely a servant of Lou'ghlin. The last statement was verified by Detec-tive-Sergeant Hammond. His Worship commented that gambling presented an interesting history for the past hundred years, from the time when it was fashionable, and the Prime Minister’s wins and losses were chronicled in the newspapers as society news. Since then the view of gambling had changed. The contest between the law and gambling had been like the fight between armour and guns. When gambling in a house was vetoed, the j! gambler used a shed. When the shed j

was banned lie took to the field, arid , when the law met this with the definition “place,” there was a fight to de- i cide the question whether or not a man under an umbrella was in a “place.” So it had gone on until now it was a very close “go,” and he thought the gambler Would have to give up. The Legislature took the view that young fools had to be protected from experienced men, arid that |he upsetting effect of gambling on the people generally was detrimental to the industries of the community. Only severe penalties would have the effect aimed at by the Legislature. Loughlin would be convicted and fined £3OO, in default, twelve months’ imprisonment, and Dixon would be fined £IOO, in,default, six months’ imprisonment. The defendants were allowed a week in which to pay. ...

You’ll derive the greatest benefit from taking SHARLAND’S REEF, IRON AND WINE. If you are rundown ’twill make you fit; if you are well ’twill keep you fit.