RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 293, 9 July 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday July 8. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E.M.) CARD SHARPING. P. Moss was brought up, charged under the Vagrant Act, and also with having cheated one Leon Merange at cards. Constable Neville proved that he arrested the defendant at the request of the prosecutor, who stated that he had cheated him by playing with marked cards, whereby he lost £9 Is 6d. The witness explained that the cards were marked in a peculiar manner when printed. At the top of the card was a figure shaped something like a boot. The heel of this in the higher cards—the nine, ten, or upwards, was larger than on the lower cards, and this varied in such a manner as to tell the initiated at a glance the exact value of each card, as this was in fact marked on the back. He could not do this, but he could tell a high card from a lower one. The cards he produced were the cards prisoner played with the prosecutor with, and they were handed to witness by Mr Corcoran, in whose house the play took place. Cards of this description were manufactured expressly for sharpers, and though apparently alike exactly in pattern, a close examination by a practised eye showed the marks referred to.

In cross-examination by the defendant, witness said that when prosecutor gave him into custody they were having supper together. He knew that prosecutor had had a billiard saloon in Hokitika, and had heard that he was a gambler, but did not know it from his own knowledge. After some further questions, defendant asked permission to test the witness as to his distinguishing between high and low cards, and this being accorded, shuffled the cards quickly, put one on the table, face downwards, and asked witness to state what that was. Constable Neville after examining it, replied that he could not tell what the card was, but it was a high card, and on turning it up it proved to be an ace. Defendant after this observed that witness knew moreaboutthe cardsthan hedid, and declined to. ask further questions. Francis Lewis said I know the prisoner, and I know the cards produced. I gave them to the prisoner. I do not know whether they are marked or not. I could not swear to them positively, but believe them to be the same. By the Bench—l am at present an M.C. I gave him the cards yesterday. I do not swear to the cards, I only said they resembled them. By prisoner—Tou said that you were going to play a very clever Frenchman, and wanted a thick pack of cards, that is why you asked for them. George Evans proved that the cards produced were what are termed

" readers" that is, marked so that they could be read on the back.

By the defendant—He had shown defendant tricks with cards. He would not say that they were fair cards, but he would play with them. He lent prisoner ten shillings on the day in question. He would have no objection to play with marked cards as long as he knew they were marked, as well as the person he was playing with. The cards produced were " readers."

Leon Merange said that he kept the billiard tables at the National Hotel. Ou the previous night he and defendant had a game at cards at Corcoran's hotel, when the barman brought in the pack of cards produced. Witness objected to play with them and wanted a new pack, but could not get others. He played then for two hours, and daring that time lost £9 Is 6d, some of which was for drinks. After playing for some time and shortly before giving up, he insisted on having a new pack and Mr Corcoran at last brought some in, saying at the same time that the pack they h ad been playing with did not belong to him and that he knew nothing about them. After the new pack had been produced a short time, some one came in and said that some one named Curlew wanted defendant, and the latter left him. Though witness thought it suspicious he did not say anything at the time. The Magistrate enquired whether " poker" the game they were playing, wiw one of chance or skill.

Prosecutor explained that it was a game of chance combined with skill. Examination resumed—About three quarters of an hour afterwards Evans came in and said that he was sorry he did not know witness was going ;o play with defendant, for that he (Evans) could have put him on his guard. In consequence of this and other things he heard, he went to look for defendant; and after fivding him they had pies' and coffee together at Reid's. He irvited defendant to have this in order to keep him in sight till he could give him into custody.

Prisoner cross-examined the prosecutor with a view to show that he was a professional gambler, that he had been connected with a man named Joseph Silberberg in disreputable gamling transactions, and that he got his living by this means. These charges the witness denied, though he admitted that he was a keeper of billiard saloons, and played occasionally. He also denied that he ever said his billiard table was a blind, and that his object in coming to the Bullerwas to "shepherd" a man who had once won money off him, and from whom, as he now had plenty of money, he prosecutor wanted to get a hundred or two out of; He denied that he got a living by gambling. He admitted that he had offered not to press the charge if the money was refunded.

Michael Corcoran, landlord of the Hibernian Hotel proved defendant had been in his employment, in charge of his billiard table, for three months whilst he was absent in Sydney. In reply to defendant, witness said that he had only left his employ about three weeks, and had since boarded with him. On the previous night to the one in question, Dr Bennett was playing with defendant; had every reason to believe that defendant was honest.

The defendant said he had a witness to call, who was present the whole time the play complained of was going on, and a constable was sent to brine him up. Kobert Cooper was the witness alluded to, and on being examined said, that he was in the room where prosecutor and defendant were play ; _ng. He was perfectly sober, and saw all that was going on till the defendant was called away. When he went they parted without an angry word. During the time he was there he saw nothing dishonest. Defendant had played with him one night. He did not think defendant could swindle that man, (prosecutor), because he thought the latter knew more than he did. All seemed straightforward as far as he could judge. The defendant made a long speech in defence, in -which he complained of being brought up under the Vagrant Act, and of the police supplementing any information that a private person laid against him. Instead of occupying the boards of a cell as he had done the previous night, the prosecutor should have done so, and he should have had the feather bed.

The Magistrate remarked that it was the business of the police to put any charge on the sheet, in such manner as would bring the offence charged within the operation of the law. Defendant went on, and concluded by saying that he could not read the cards as had been stated if he was to study for six months. The only reason why he got these cards was, that the Frenchman had got such nice short

fat fingers that he could manipulate thin cards as he pleased. By getting these thick cards it was not so easy for him (prosecutor) to shuffle and cheat with. The Court then adjourned till 2 o'clock, in order to allow the Magistrate time to consider his decision. On the Court resuming, defendant! ■called Sergeant Williams as to character The Magistrate said that at first he had some doubt as to the legal nature -of the charge, and whether it could come under the Vagrant Act. It was just 'doubtful whether it did not come under the Larceny Act, as obtaining money under false pretences. It was ; however, clearly applicable to the 6th and 7th clauses of the Vagrant Act whichprovidedagainstplayingorbetting at any unlawful game, or with any unlawful instrument. Now if the cards were marked they came under the head of unlawful instruments, as provided for by these clauses, and, therefore there was no doubt as to the law of the question, that the case might be taken under the Vagrant Act. The general charge of vagrancy had been disproved by the evidence of employment, and he had only tu consider the specific charge as to the marked cards, and whether the defendant knew they were marked ? No ■one who had heard the evidence could for a moment doubt that this had been •clearly proved by the witnesses examined. For his own (the Magistrate's) satisfaction, however, since the adjournment of the court, he had carefully examined the cards, and had found that the marking went much further than the evidence had shown, and he found that he could read them all with very little trouble, and could tell the suit and value of every card from the back. He had only done this for his own satisfaction. The sole question left therefore, was the -degree of the offence. There was no •doubt that the defendant was guilty, and it might be assumed that this was the first time he had been convicted. There was no evidence as to his .general habits, and therefore the punishment would not be as heavy as the Act empowered the bench to inflict. The sentence of the court was that the prisoner be imprisoned for one month with hard labour.