COMMON GAMING HOUSE

Hokitika Guardian, 21 January 1925, Page 4

COMMON GAMING HOUSE

A NELSON CASE. NELSON, January lit. George A. Clements was charged that, being the occupier of certain promises in Hardy Street, he did use the same as a common gaming house. He pleaded guilty. Senior-Sergeant Barrett stated that defendant came to Kelson about- three months ago and commenced business as a saddler in premises in Hardy Street. It soon became evident that he had established himself as a bookmaker. The premises were raided by the police on, warrant on the night of .December 31 la.sl, when a. lot of incriminating documents wore found. Nothing was known against, him prior to coming to Nelson from Wellington.

In answer to the Bench, .Senior-Ser-geant- Barrett said that according to documents seized he should say defendant was only a beginner. Ho did not think defendant had got very tar ahead with tin; business. There was one document called a double chart. which ill itself is (Vo i ice. .lifering 25 to 1. There were also a lot of ••acecards and letters, all leading up to the business, showing clearly that defendant was well established, in the line of honkmaking. The Magistrate: So far as you know he has not been doing business invw lie re else ?

The Senior-Sergeant: No. The bookmakers here are in, touch with bookmakers in other places. They don’t bet on local matters, but lon outside matters, and this outisde matter is transacted by code. ’I here is a- hookmakers’ association established in this country on a very strong footing. The Magistrate: it is not incorporated is l it ! The Senior-Sergeant : It "id be by the look of it if they go much further. They are making application to I’arliauvnb to “get a place in the sun,” T don’t know whether he (defendant) is a member hut .steps were being taken to have him included. Cmmse! Tfe t.~- not included. The Senior-Sergeant : I hey have in pay a £3O fee to become a member md are supplied with codes, etc. The .Magistrate : He is what is called a ‘•tenderfoot?” The Smiior-Sergcant: Yes. The going was good here mid he thought there would be no interference, but lie had not gone far before Hip law caught him. Counsel appealed for leniency. Defendant's business was conducted in a very small way, and there was evidence as to this liv liis small bank bala.nce. Tfe did not, suppose bis client had a monopoly of the business in Nelson, but lie had been the one to be caught. The Magistrate said he must impose a penalty. No doubt defendant carried on the business for profit lie made out of it. He would be convicted and fined -C25, in default two months’ imprisonment. Defendant was allowed a week to nay.