THE BETTING CASE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8287, 15 November 1906, Page 5

THE BETTING CASE.

MAGISTRATE'S JUDGMENT. Mr W. P. James, S.M., yesterday, delivered bis reserved judgment in the ea-je in which the police proceeded against Oeoil W. Pally, for breaches of the Gaming anri Lotteries Aot, 1881. The faots of the case were reported in yesterday's Issue. The Magistrate said that he bad looked at several English oases dealing with the matter, and in all of them evidence had been given to the effect that the defendants had constantly used the places in such a manner that they could be deemed to be the keeper, owner or oooupier of the plaoe. In the case of Belton v. Woods and Bushby, defendants were charged with offences committed on March Ist, 2nd, 3rd and 4tht 1899, with being persona using the Royal Pair Beerhouse, did use the same for the purpose of betting with persons resorting thereto. The words of the English Act were not quite the same as .the New Zealand Act, bat the oase abure quote>d_was one strongly in point witb> the present one. The defendant Woods on each of the dates oharged went to the Royal Pair Beerhouse shortly after 12 o'clock (noon) and remained there till shortly after 3 p.m. Bushby, the licensee of the hotel, was and the eventß described took plaae with the knowledge of and permission of Buahby. The Magistrates were satisfied that Woods conducted in the saloon the business of ready money betting. He received bets there, and paid bets. The Magistrate dismissed the cases, being of opinion that Woods was not using the bar in such a manner as to constitute an alleged user within the moaning of the There was an appeal. Judge Grantham in his judgment stated:— "The section is manifestly aimed at the persons Keeping the place for the purpose of . betting. The present oase is dearly within tho purview of the Act, and is clearly within thd meaning aimed at. Woods had a license from Bnsbby (licensee), to be there. 'The case finds that he was there regularly for hours, and he went there tiora day to day at certain defined times." In the oase of Brown v. Patoh, jt was held that "in each case it is a question of • fact whether there is a user of the analogous to than of an occupier occupying a place at which he is prepared to bet with persons who come there to bet with him." In tbe present case there was nothing )n the evidence to show that defendant used the passage of the hotel for the purpose of making bets. He in no way oocupied it either by license or payment. The only evidence is that he met a person on tbe footpath in front of the hotel or on the doorstep, who wished to make a bet. They stepped just inside the door into the passage where the bet was entered, and the parties immediately left. Mr James added that, it would bo stretohing the Act tar beyond what was intended if he were to hold that a single instance and a chance meeting when two persons met at a hotel and made a bet, that one of tbem was guilty of using a plaoe for the purpose of betting with persons resorting thereto. The information would be dismissed. Mr B. .1. Dolan appeared for the police, and Mr 0. A. Pownall for the defendant.

CABLE NEWS.

By Telegraph—Press Association—Oopyright,