THE GAMBLING SCANDAL.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4424, 20 May 1893, Page 3

THE GAMBLING SCANDAL.

A Conviction Obtained. Strong Comments from the Bench.

The case in which J. 0. Eastwood, late proprietor of the Star Hotel, Masterton, was charged wHi permitting gambling on liconsed premises, was resumed before Mr T. Hutchison, It.M,, this morning, The next witness, Robert Johns, gave evidence that Mortensen and his friends came into the private bar of thorjtar Hotel at the time "a shilling in " was being thrown. Mortensen induced Hebley.to lay a side wager, and from that tl ey got '.o live shilling stakes. Eastwood was 'nut present, hut when he came into ihe room bo told 'hem that he would not allow" shaking " in tho house, they would have to go somewhere else. Siion''afterwards.the p'iva'e bar was closed, and Morletison and Hebley went into niiDllirrootnl and wiliMs followed in. Mortensen lit the gas and Eastwood was not present. Did hptisee him come into the room during the play.' "Hebley and Mortensen proposed that witness should see fair play inUhe throwing. /.-By: M r Bunny,: Was not in' woi k for a wiekproviously. -Was at WhatmfuVs.;;, Never was employed at the Star..hotel. : .l;.,Canie from Hawke's Bay on,tbal ; 'day^..Was also known by the jiame: bf...Smith,.:. Adniittod:he had previously' convicted for'cruelty to a horse;'^Vould.not deny thut he: bad been'iu:: guol on iliioe 'occ'asibhß'.;; He had:|no. consultation with Eastwood or any. ione=: elf e ..about ■ the v 'case yeß tertl ay. ■■:"' :^oii; ; i;'|: :^iv^ . V ;; : .V'Cha;le?Dowset, ,wh').,was;. residing a'tiliie'Star Hotel atrtlie .tiine'the. ■al;Jeged; offito'co waß; committed, gave. Evidence that during thet throwing in llie piiyuto bar .he 'saw''Mortensen. .and Hebley were making side wagers, andiftheyrafterwards■'inoreased. the ■Eastwood'.came .into. ..tho ."rpom'yiiid stopped; the; did hot' seeanyTmoreplayjoiid.didnot know ■tinie. ; he went to hedi;>, ; :v;::;);&;, ''■'-.

|e-i'enoe.--^;--;-.jv''::?;> ■';;!;;.: ■' '';''s:4''

'.; r The'ißeiicbi' in giving judgment, .said that in this cise it had been practically admitted that diciug or "Yankee .Grab'' had been played .ia: the-Star Hotel on;tlio4(h oro;li of February, At anyrate, whetherornot,it.wus abundantly clear fronv evidence that it had btcn.... The only question was, waVit Carried on with the knowledges/of tho mnkeeporlpr tome.agent; otitis fj:.Tho knowledge-hiighc.beHabiive' '.or.cOQstriiclive;;;!By cbuitructive he meant .- that.the intikeeper./uiight have .been wilfully blind to iti 9 Mdrtenaeni.and the', other % witnesses for the prosecution; gave; positive'evidence that he did kinow./t;;Thn witnesses forthe.defenc'eJn?;tholinain;'part of their evidence'ragfeed the: dicing/or gambling.being.carried on, but;as to Eastwood's presence ati tho'/timo they ,vvere not.6greedr; : ;.lfMortensen was ! spdaking tbei truth/; Eastwood ; = Was.. present, but in a case like ibis he was .bound to give the defendant the bene- - fit of any doubt.which might bum his minrj;: Reviewing , Eastwood'sjevi deuce, he. found that Eastwood had positively Bworu -that, he did .not know that gambling was going on. Thia-wasfaintly corroborated by the defence,. The witnesses for the prosecution, asserted positively that East-, wood ".was in and out." Eastwood's witnesses', evidence was purely negative they said '• they did not see him," Eastwood himself .admitted coming twioe into the bar, where tho gambling was going on, i This bar was a smallf;rpom and was it likely that Eastwood could have avoided seeing whatwss going on when he came in. Let them assume, however, that he was so busy that he did not. see that gambling was going, on, they then came to the period where the men were stated to have been turned out, By.his own admission he knew that dicing was going on then, because he jsaid he.stopped it. Regardinn the dice the Court was of opinion that some one of those present produced them,,; When turned out of the private bar, the evidence showed that one party went to a room behind the pub« lie bar, and the other party—Hebley, Morionsen and Johns-went into another room. It i; was stated that Eastwood did hot know the men wore in the room, but was this a reasonable supposition, Certainly not, unless—and he wished to give Eastwood the benefit of tho supposition—ho (the inkeeper) really thought Mortonsen, Hebley and tho others had gone elsewhere, This supposition was disabuseJ, however, by the fact of Mortensen cashing the first cheque, Eaßtwood admitted that the changing of the second cheque was strange even to him. In the opinion of the Bench it was more than itrange. On Eastwood's own evidence constructive knowledge was clearly shown, According to Hebley the barmaid had known that gambling was going on, and Mr Eastwood too. He (Mr Hutchison) would go further, and say that Eastwood directly and positively knew that this gambling was going on, on a Sunday rooming, and he (Mr Hutchison) .could not close his eyes to the fact that several breachel of the Licensing Act had been shown by the evidence. In only having the present case brought against him, Eastwood was being dealt with most leniently. By cashing cheques for the purpose of (upplyiDg money for gambling purposes, he had laid himself open to a five hundred pound penalty. The present was a first offence, but still the proceedings wrre of 60 disgraceful a nature, that the Ecnch considered more than a nominal hue , should be imposed. The interests of i justice and morality required tho infliction of a substantial penalty, and the Court therefore imposed a fine of £5 and costs.

Mr Poflnsll said with reference to costs, it had been a custom of the Court not to allow coats against the police, and therefore not for the police., It would bo a one-sided and unfair arrangement to do so in the present caso. He should ask His ! Worship to make a rule on the matter. I His Worship said he would consider

| the question. In the present case kowever, he skou'd allow costs, ' Costs were tlienforo allowed, amounting to £1219s (id, After argument His Woiship ruled that the license must be endorsed, but said he would postpone doing so lor a fonnight.