FRUIT MACHINES.

Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 180, 2 August 1939, Page 5

FRUIT MACHINES.

INFORMATION DISMISSED.

GAMIXG HOUSE CHARGE

At the Police Court yesterday, Leonard Edward Karle Williams, mechanic, was charged before Mr. J. Morling, S.M., with using premises in High Street as a common gaming house. Detective-Sergeant Xaldei prosecuted and Mr. J. J. Sullivan appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution produced evidence that a constable in the garb of <i carrier had, on .luly 19, 20 and 21, gone to premises in Hiuli Street, and in room 27, which was one of two rooms occupied by the defendant, played a fruit machine. He had purchased discs, once from the defendant, on tive occasions, and had played them into the machine, losing the lot, the amount expended being 13/. In cross-examination Mr. Sullivan elicited the fact that the constable lied seen only two men oute'uln three employee* of the defendant playing the machine, and then only one man at a time. Mr. Sullivan submitted that the charge must fail because there whs, no evidence that the premises constituted a common gaming hou;te. It was not denied that the machine was illegal, nor that it had been played by employees of the defendant occasionally. >il«o by two other men and the constable, but counsel quoted decisions of Mr. .Justice Salmond, who had held that before premises could be held to be a common gaming house there must be evidence that the pnmises were frequented by more than one person at the same time and on frequent occasions. Certain generalities had to be established and there was no evidence of such generalities in the present case. Defendant gave evidence and said that his employees played the machine more or lees for amusement. Outside the employees, the constable, and two other men, no one else had played the machine. The machine had been in the room five or six weeks. He had imported 10 machines some time ago and had either sold them or hired them out. His Worship agreed with Mr. Sullivan's contention that the evidence was not sufficient to satisfy the Court that the premises were used as a common gaming house, and the charge was dismissed.